218 replies to this topic

[glennhoffmania]

This is such a disaster. It further waters down the regular season. Even a three game series is stupid. I think even a five game series is kind of dumb. A one game series is just plain stupid. There's the whole issue of a WC from a strong division with 95 wins compared to a division champ from a shit division with 88 wins. Any tie breaker games will make it even more complicated. Just an awful idea in every way.

[RedOctober3829]

The first round format changed for this year only. Instead of a 2-2-1, it will be a 2-3 format with the first 2 games at the lower seed. I don't like that because it gives the lower seed the opportunity to take control of the series at home.

[tims4wins]

It's going to be a one game series, but the bigger news is that - for one year only - the lower seed will host the first 2 games, followed by the last 3 games being held at the higher seed. This was necessary to eliminate the off day between games 4 and 5, since the 2012 regular season schedule was confirmed before the decision to add the extra playoff teams was confirmed.

http://www.boston.co...lb_playoff.html

Edit: beaten to it by redoctober

Edited by tims4wins, 02 March 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[RedOctober3829]

MLB has eliminated the rule that the wild card winner can't play a team from its division in the Division Series.

https://twitter.com/#!/PeteAbe/status/175668437975179264

[tims4wins]

https://twitter.com/#!/PeteAbe/status/175668437975179264

Well that's a positive change

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

The DS format change for this season only is no big deal to me. The one game playoff between two WC teams is a huge deal. That's going to put a huge emphasis on winning the division. Not sure if I like it or not, but it probably does make late September through early October a lot more exciting league-wide.

I'd hate to see the Red Sox win 95 games, miss winning the division by a game, and have to face a 90-win team for a single win or go home playoff game. Of course, if the Red Sox are the 90-win team in that scenario (second WC team) it becomes a huge positive. Some years we'll probably be cursing this change, other years we might be quite thankful.

Edit: I definitely like that they removed the stupid rule that the WC team can't play a team from their own division in the DS. That's a major improvement.

Edited by Bucknahs Bum Ankle, 02 March 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[BucketOBalls]

You know this wouldn't be THAT stupid if they did seeding by record rather than division. From 1995-2009 the only year both wild card teams were the worst playoff team in their league was 1999. That's the only year. Possibly Forcing the second best team(and third best is pretty common) into a 1 game playoff with the 5th team is stupid.

[glennhoffmania]

I'm just trying to understand why Bud has such a hardon for this. It can't be only for the added revenue of two additional WC games. If the argument is to create more interesting Sept. races, this isn't the solution. The odds of two teams fighting for a division title or a single WC slot are the same as two teams fighting for a second WC slot. I get that it could make more teams relevant a little longer into the season, but the cost of that potential nominal added interest is way, way too high.

[tims4wins]

I'm just trying to understand why Bud has such a hardon for this. It can't be only for the added revenue of two additional WC games. If the argument is to create more interesting Sept. races, this isn't the solution. The odds of two teams fighting for a division title or a single WC slot are the same as two teams fighting for a second WC slot. I get that it could make more teams relevant a little longer into the season, but the cost of that potential nominal added interest is way, way too high.

Well, it does give a little bit more of an edge to the division winners - it's been a recent complaint that there is no penalty for being a wild card team.

[glennhoffmania]

Well, it does give a little bit more of an edge to the division winners - it's been a recent complaint that there is no penalty for being a wild card team.

First of all, the division winners get seeded higher and get HFA over a WC team- that's an edge. Second, a WC team can be better than a division winner, as Bucket pointed out. Finally, this swings the pendulum so far to the other extreme that it can't be more equitable than the old system.

[trekfan55]

Last year, after a certain point, it would have been set in stone that the Sox and the Rays would meet in that one game playoff. They would have simply set their pitchers for that day and sleepwalked during that final series.

The same rule applies on the National League with the Braves collapse.

This is most clearly a penalty for not winning the division, whereas the wildcard was put in place so that a team that fails to win its division can still make the playoffs (such as the 1993 San Francisco Giants).

[glennhoffmania]

I'm not disputing that it's a penalty for not winning the division. I'm questioning the wisdom of making the penalty this severe.

[Rasputin]

First of all, the division winners get seeded higher and get HFA over a WC team- that's an edge. Second, a WC team can be better than a division winner, as Bucket pointed out. Finally, this swings the pendulum so far to the other extreme that it can't be more equitable than the old system.

MLB doesn't give a shit if it's equitable.

Additional wild card = good
One game playoff = bad
Change format = bad but only one year so not that big a deal

Dear MLB, you don't need an off day every time teams travel.

[trekfan55]

I'm not disputing that it's a penalty for not winning the division. I'm questioning the wisdom of making the penalty this severe.

I agree with you. BTW this does not seem to be the way that Bud Selig and co. are presenting it.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

Dear MLB, you don't need an off day every time teams travel.

I bet that's a player's association thing.

[tims4wins]

One question that I don't think has been answered yet: what happens in the event of a divisional tie, in the case where the 2nd place team would earn one of the wild card spots? In years past, the division title was based on head to head record. With the new playoff rules, an argument could be made that there should be a one game playoff, since winning the division is much more important. That could create quite the clusterfuck.

[OttoC]

I thought a look at how teams with the 4th and 5th best records in the major leagues have performed since the baseball expanded to three divisions in a league. The first two years in this format, 1994 and 1995, were shortened seasons because of labor strife, so I only included 1996 through 2011 in my study.

Basically, a very strong case based on winning percentage can be made for having a wild-card team. During the 16 years in my study, the wild-card teams had a winning percentage equal to, or better than, at least one of the first-place teams in 13 AL seasons and 10 NL seasons.

I expanded this to look at the teams each year that neither placed first in a division nor got the wild-card spot (i.e., the new second wild-cards) but the case made on winning percentage is not s strong. These teams did have a better or equal record than one of THE division winners four times in the AL and 10 times in the NL.

Average Winning Percentages for Division Winners, Wild-card Teams, and Potential Second-Wild-card Teams, 1996-2011

AL	 NL	
.623   .611  best division record
.586   .580  2nd-best division record
.562   .555  3rd-best division record
.584   .564  wild-card winner
.549   .549  (new) 2nd-wild-card

Those are averages of averages, but since almost every team played 162 games, errors are small.

[glennhoffmania]

Ortiz:

“One game? That’s kind of crazy. You know how many things we’ve got to move around and pack for one game? It’d make more sense for two wild cards to play at least a two-out-of-three series while the other teams take a break for three days because they won their divisions.”

Chipper:

"I'm not for it. I think the elite teams deserve to make it to the playoffs. Pretty soon, Major League Baseball is going to be like the NBA. There will be more teams that make it than don't. The season is too long as it is. Now you're going to give teams more travel. I don't agree with it, but we're just a piece of meat. We do what they tell us to."



Link

Edited by glennhoffmania, 02 March 2012 - 05:06 PM.

[getfoul]

The only fair thing to do is eliminate divisions, play a balanced schedule, and seed the top-5 in the right order.

They aren't doing that, so it is what it is.

Win your division, or face the possibility you're gone after one game. Obviously it would make more sense to go best-of-3, but if the players don't want 4 or 5 day byes, than this is what they've signed up for.

[getfoul]

One question that I don't think has been answered yet: what happens in the event of a divisional tie, in the case where the 2nd place team would earn one of the wild card spots? In years past, the division title was based on head to head record. With the new playoff rules, an argument could be made that there should be a one game playoff, since winning the division is much more important. That could create quite the clusterfuck.

I would think the divisional tie would have to be broken by playing a game. I think that's one of the main reasons whay they're making this change.

[Rasputin]

The only fair thing to do is eliminate divisions, play a balanced schedule, and seed the top-5 in the right order.

They aren't doing that, so it is what it is.

Win your division, or face the possibility you're gone after one game. Obviously it would make more sense to go best-of-3, but if the players don't want 4 or 5 day byes, than this is what they've signed up for.

Fair is not on the agenda, and if you look at the success of the NFL who doesn't even pretend to care about fair, how can you blame them?

The agenda is money first, growing the game so there can be more money later, and that's about it.

[glennhoffmania]

What about the NFL system is so unfair? They rotate the non-divisional opponents every year so the schedule is as balanced as it could be. The two best teams get a week off. The higher seed gets HFA. It's unrealistic to have a best of 3 or 5 playoff series in the NFL. In baseball playing more than one game in a row is the norm. Even if you want to ignore the fairness argument, baseball isn't even using plain old common sense.

[Rasputin]

What about the NFL system is so unfair? They rotate the non-divisional opponents every year so the schedule is as balanced as it could be. The two best teams get a week off. The higher seed gets HFA. It's unrealistic to have a best of 3 or 5 playoff series in the NFL. In baseball playing more than one game in a row is the norm. Even if you want to ignore the fairness argument, baseball isn't even using plain old common sense.

They don't play the same schedule. They barely even nod in the direction of playing the same schedule. There are sixteen teams in each conference. It would be easy to play every team in the conference once but they don't.

[dynomite]

Last year, after a certain point, it would have been set in stone that the Sox and the Rays would meet in that one game playoff. They would have simply set their pitchers for that day and sleepwalked during that final series.

Meaning the Wild Card would have been determined in a nationally televised one-game playoff between the two actual teams involved, instead of on local cable against teams that weren't playing for anything. In my opinion that's definitely more exciting and arguably "fairer." While the Yankees were resting for the playoffs -- sitting all of their best players and leaving Scott Proctor on the mound to die -- the Orioles had nothing to rest for and were going full bore in the last game of their season.

(Also, as late as September 25th the Angels were only 2 games behind the Sox and 2.5 behind the Rays, so the entire month leading up to that last weekend would have been equally important)

Edited by dynomite, 02 March 2012 - 07:07 PM.

[dynomite]

They don't play the same schedule. They barely even nod in the direction of playing the same schedule. There are sixteen teams in each conference. It would be easy to play every team in the conference once but they don't.

And there are 4 divisions, so there's an even greater chance of a "bad" division winner making the playoffs while a "good" Wild Card stays home. In 2008 the 8-8 Chargers made the playoffs while 11-5 Patriots stayed home. In 2010 the 7-9 Seahawks made the playoffs while the 10-6 Bucs and Giants stayed home.

That's a 3 game difference, mathematically equivalent to 30 games in MLB. To make an oversimplified analogy, it would be akin to, say, that '05 Padres team winning the NL West (and making the playoffs) with 82 wins while a 112-win team in the NL East missed the playoffs altogether.

[trekfan55]

Meaning the Wild Card would have been determined in a nationally televised one-game playoff between the actual two teams, instead of on local cable against teams that weren't playing for anything. In my opinion that's definitely more exciting and arguably "fairer."

(Also, as late as September 25th the Angels were only 2 games behind the Sox and 2.5 behind the Rays, so the entire month leading up to that last weekend would have been equally important)

The Angels were eliminated and were not a factor coming into the last weekend.

And my point is that coming into the final series, both the Rays and the Sox would have known that they'd play that final game unfer this format. So, those 6 games (3 Sox-O's and 3 Rays-Yanks) would have been meaningless instead of having at least a modicum of interest. Given the circumstances Tito would have set up his best picther for that game and rested the remaining ones in hopes of advancing.

[dynomite]

The Angels were eliminated and were not a factor coming into the last weekend.

Right. All I was saying in terms of the Angels was that as late as September 25th there would have been a Wild Card race, even with a 2nd Wild Card.

And my point is that coming into the final series, both the Rays and the Sox would have known that they'd play that final game unfer this format. So, those 6 games (3 Sox-O's and 3 Rays-Yanks) would have been meaningless instead of having at least a modicum of interest. Given the circumstances Tito would have set up his best picther for that game and rested the remaining ones in hopes of advancing.

This might just be a matter of personal preference, but I would have rather seen that scenario. (And not just because the Red Sox ended up losing) As it was, those games were only available in local markets and were played against teams with nothing on the line. For the Rays, it meant they got to play the AAA Yankees in Game 162 to go to the playoffs.

I would have rather seen the Rays and Red Sox play Game 163 with a rested Beckett and Shields, pitting best against best in a win-or-go-home playoff game.

[Infield Infidel]

One question that I don't think has been answered yet: what happens in the event of a divisional tie, in the case where the 2nd place team would earn one of the wild card spots? In years past, the division title was based on head to head record. With the new playoff rules, an argument could be made that there should be a one game playoff, since winning the division is much more important. That could create quite the clusterfuck.

http://espn.go.com/m...fs-two-teams-10

In a further complication, both sides reached a consensus that ties for division titles would be broken on the field with a tiebreaker game under the new format, and not by head-to-head record.
Head-to-head record has been used since 1995 to determine first place if both teams are going to the postseason. But the sides decided that with the start of a one-game, winner-take-all wild-card round, the difference between first place and a wild-card berth is too important to decide with a formula and that a tiebreaker game should be played.

I think that's good, those games can be exciting. Also, it would be interesting if the team lost the playoff, won the WC, then played their divisional opponent again.

[EvilEmpire]

While the Yankees were resting for the playoffs -- sitting all of their best players and leaving Scott Proctor on the mound to die -- the Orioles had nothing to rest for and were going full bore in the last game of their season.

I understand the bitterness, but you know this isn't exactly true. They had most of their starting lineup in the game until they had a 7 run lead through most of the game. While it was true that they rotated in lots of pitchers, it worked pretty well until the wheels came off in the 8th. Unfortunate they did didn't have much pitching left on the bench, but blaming them for giving key pitchers some rest going into the playoffs is a little silly. Girardi handled that whole situation pretty well. He clearly wasn't punting from the start. Credit the Rays -- they did a great job.

[Infield Infidel]

The thing I don't like about this:

Say the Sox win 95, but the Yanks win 96, the AL West and Central winners both win 90. Sox play and win the WC, then play . . . the Yankees!

So the best two teams play in one DS and the worst two teams play in another. It's stupid.

Do what the NBA does: seed them 1-5, with the division winners no lower than 4, so the div winner at least has home-field in the play-in game.

That's enough of a benefit, not the uber-cushion over clearly better teams

Edited by Infield Infidel, 02 March 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[dynomite]

but blaming them for giving key pitchers some rest going into the playoffs is a little silly.

I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear: I'm not blaming the Yankees for sitting their players. That was their right which they earned. In fact, that's my exact point.

Instead of playing teams that had nothing on the line, I would have rather seen a Game 163 between the Red Sox and Rays, which I think would have been both more exciting and (again, arguably) fairer.

I understand the bitterness, but you know this isn't exactly true. They had most of their starting lineup in the game until they had a 7 run lead through most of the game. While it was true that they rotated in lots of pitchers, it worked pretty well until the wheels came off in the 8th.

You're right, it was an overstatement, and I am absolutely bitter (in no small part because I was at Camden that night...). I'd forgotten that they did start most of their position players.

But as for the AAA Yankees bit:

1) by the time the Rays were battling for their playoff lives in extra innings, here was the Yankee lineup:

Pena, 2B
Golson, LF
Chavez, 3B
Posada, DH
Dickerson, RF
Gardner, CF
Romine, C
Nunez, SS
Laird, 1B

2) here's the box score of the Yankees pitchers in that game:

Betances, 2 IP
Kontos, 0.2IP
Laffey, 1.1 IP
Hughes, 1 IP
Valdes, 1 IP
Burnett, 0.1 IP
Brackman, 0.1 IP
Logan, 0.1 IP
Ayala, 1 IP
Wade, 0.2 IP
Proctor, 2.2 IP

Again, I don't begrudge the Yankees (or the Rays) for anything that happened. The Rays won, the Sox lost, it was fair, and it was high drama.

But, given my druthers, I would have rather seen the Red Sox and Rays play against each other.

Edited by dynomite, 02 March 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[BucketOBalls]

The thing I don't like about this:

Say the Sox win 95, but the Yanks win 96, the AL West and Central winners both win 90. Sox play and win the WC, then play . . . the Yankees!

So the best two teams play in one DS and the worst two teams play in another. It's stupid.

Another reason I think you should seed by record rather than making the division winners 1-3. If you do that, this kinda works, but if you don't it is pretty unfair. At the extreme, in 2001 a 102 win team(infact the second best record in MLB) would have been forced into a 1 game playoff with an 85 win team.

[Infield Infidel]

This kind of makes sense for the NL, but not for the AL

Wild Card lead at end of season since 1996:

AL avg 5.81
NL avg 2.25

In the NL, the Wild Card winner has won by an avg of only 2.25 games. The range is 8 games at the highest and 0 games at the lowest, which happened the three times there was a tie for the WC that resulted in a play-off. Only once has the winner won by more than 4 games, when the Mets won by 8 in 2000. So the wild card teams will be pretty close in the NL

Not so in the AL. The WC winner wins by 5.81 games, almost six games. The range has 17 games and 12 games at the top, and 1 game at the bottom, which happened twice. While the norm in the NL is 4 games or less, in the AL the norm is 3 games or more. The AL wild card winner has won by less than 3 games only 4 times in 16 years. It's rarely close in the AL

with OttoC's info

Average Winning Percentages for Division Winners, Wild-card Teams, and Potential Second-Wild-card Teams, 1996-2011

AL	 NL	
.623   .611  best division record
.586   .580  2nd-best division record
.562   .555  3rd-best division record
.584   .564  wild-card winner
.549   .549  (new) 2nd-wild-card

We can infer that the AL WC winner averages practically the same record as the 2nd-best div winner, and a healthy .036 ahead of the 2nd WC.

They are really doubling down that the CBA will increase parity at the top of the AL.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 02 March 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[Rasputin]

They are really doubling down that the CBA will increase parity at the top of the AL.

I don't think so. I think this is designed more to make sure the second tier of teams makes the ALCS more. A team with one excellent pitcher (see Detroit 2011) stands a pretty decent chance of knocking out one of the top AL East teams in the Wild Card game.

[Sampo Gida]

I'm just trying to understand why Bud has such a hardon for this. It can't be only for the added revenue of two additional WC games. If the argument is to create more interesting Sept. races, this isn't the solution. The odds of two teams fighting for a division title or a single WC slot are the same as two teams fighting for a second WC slot. I get that it could make more teams relevant a little longer into the season, but the cost of that potential nominal added interest is way, way too high.

How many times have we seen the Red Sox concede the division to the Yankees, or more recently the Yankees conceding the division to the Rays to rest players and align their rotations. Now you have them battling for the division to avoid the 1 game playoff. Works for me.

You also drop the threshold of what it takes to win a WC spot from 95 games to 90 games. That means more teams have hope for a WC spot going into the season, and an 85 W small market team is more likely to spend on FA for 5 extra wins than pocket his revenue sharing dollars.

Making the playoffs is worth about 30 million to a team according to some analysts, so you have 2 more teams with a chance of making an additional 30 million. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I would like to have balanced schedules, scrap divisions and eliminate interleague play, and go with the top 2 teams in each league (15 teams each) having a 7 game playoff in the CS, but it's never going to happen.

The thing I don't like about this:

Say the Sox win 95, but the Yanks win 96, the AL West and Central winners both win 90. Sox play and win the WC, then play . . . the Yankees!

So the best two teams play in one DS and the worst two teams play in another. It's stupid.

Lets hope it is this year. I like the idea of playing the first 2 at home in a 5 game series. Also, it's been a long time since we met the Yankees in the playoffs, too long, not sure why people fear it. Bring it on.

In 1978 we tied with the Yankees at 99 W. We lost the 1 game playoff, and the Yankees went on to play the lesser opponent (Royals who won 92) in the ALCS. As long as you have divisions, stupid things will happen.

[BucketOBalls]

I don't think so. I think this is designed more to make sure the second tier of teams makes the ALCS more. A team with one excellent pitcher (see Detroit 2011) stands a pretty decent chance of knocking out one of the top AL East teams in the Wild Card game.

And having used that one pitcher in the playin game they have almost no chance in the division series. That's the other downside here, no matter who wins the playin game they will have burnt their bullpen and screwed up their rotation. That's a pretty big disadvantage in the division series.

[Yo La Tengo]

So, a team could have four games in four cities against four different opponents: Game 162, Game 163 tiebreaker, Wild Card Knockout Game, Division Series Game 1.

http://sportsillustr...hp&sct=hp_wr_a2

[Rasputin]

And having used that one pitcher in the playin game they have almost no chance in the division series. That's the other downside here, no matter who wins the playin game they will have burnt their bullpen and screwed up their rotation. That's a pretty big disadvantage in the division series.

It may make it more likely to have one AL East team in the ALCS but it makes it a lot less likely that there will be two of them in the ALCS.

[Rasputin]

So, a team could have four games in four cities against four different opponents: Game 162, Game 163 tiebreaker, Wild Card Knockout Game, Division Series Game 1.

http://sportsillustr...hp&sct=hp_wr_a2

Sounds like fun to me.

[Yo La Tengo]

Sounds like fun to me.

Agreed. While I continue to dislike the unbalanced schedule, I think the expanded playoffs will be cool. What's to dislike about two more elimination baseball games? Plus, as has been said, I think this will create an energy/incentive as the season winds down as teams try to get into or out of this extra game.

[Hendu for Kutch]

Picture this scenario. The order is irrelevant, but let's say the Yankees and Rays tie for the AL East with 99 wins, with the Red Sox finishing 3rd and claiming the 2nd WC spot with 92 wins. We'll say the Yankees have to travel to Tampa for the tiebreaker game, where they lose to the Rays.

Now, you've got a 99 win team coming home off a road game the night before, having burned CC Sabathia and any number of their bullpen arms and facing a well-rested Red Sox team's ace and a fully rested bullpen. It looks even worse if you consider that TB and NYY have been clawing up to the end to win the division while the Sox have been locked into their 2nd WC spot for a week.

There's just too many bad scenarios that will come into play under this format whereby competitive advantages are given to teams which don't deserve them.

[EvilEmpire]

At least all the wildcard teams are disadvantaged though, even if by potentially varying degrees. That seems better than what we have now. A couple more wildcards, but being a wildcard sucks more. Could be worse, they could be staying home.

[cannonball 1729]

Ortiz:

“One game? That’s kind of crazy. You know how many things we’ve got to move around and pack for one game? It’d make more sense for two wild cards to play at least a two-out-of-three series while the other teams take a break for three days because they won their divisions.”

Chipper:

"I'm not for it. I think the elite teams deserve to make it to the playoffs. Pretty soon, Major League Baseball is going to be like the NBA. There will be more teams that make it than don't. The season is too long as it is. Now you're going to give teams more travel. I don't agree with it, but we're just a piece of meat. We do what they tell us to."



Link

You missed the best quote from that article:


"That would have been nice five years ago."

- David Wright

[SMU_Sox]

What will interest me is the ratings spike for that one game compared to tie breakers or the DS. I hate this move but I think it will be good for ratings.

[BucketOBalls]

Agreed. While I continue to dislike the unbalanced schedule, I think the expanded playoffs will be cool. What's to dislike about two more elimination baseball games? Plus, as has been said, I think this will create an energy/incentive as the season winds down as teams try to get into or out of this extra game.

I don't think this will work as well as people think though. (Another reason I think they should seed by record rather than always making division winners 1-3).

1)For one thing, the only difference between 4 and 5 is home field in the playin game. Pretty sure every team will take getting it's pitching lined up over that, especally for those teams that only HAVE one or two decent pitchers.

It's fairly common that the wildcard comes from the division with the best record in the league(i.e. they have a record that might have actually won a different division). I think it will be pretty common that a team have very little chance at the division and get locked into the wildcard, so they would also stop trying(HF for 1 game is a pretty weak effect).

2)Detriot gets a big lead in their divison they can just goof around because their division sucks. If they have to worry about the wildcard team knocking them into the 4th spot and a 1 game playoff maybe they try a bit more.

I don't think this wil actually make September more exciting, and it might make it less so. The difference between the 4th and 5th spots is really small.

Funny thought: If two teams tie for the 4th and 5th spot they should just travel to the home of the #1 seed and do the playin game there.

[Yo La Tengo]

Picture this scenario. The order is irrelevant, but let's say the Yankees and Rays tie for the AL East with 99 wins, with the Red Sox finishing 3rd and claiming the 2nd WC spot with 92 wins. We'll say the Yankees have to travel to Tampa for the tiebreaker game, where they lose to the Rays.

Agreed- this would cause the internet to explode. But, I also think it is markedly less likely then hundreds of other scenarios which add intrigue and excitement.

Following many of these hypos leads to the conclusion that the playoffs should be eliminated and the team with the best record be declared champs, with a tie being decided based on a 162-game playoff... because that's more fair. Any playoff that doesn't involve a season-long balanced schedule and a single pool of playoff teams ranked by record is "unfair," but, I think almost every playoff in every sport fails to meet that standard.

Of course this latest tweak has flaws. Hopefully, as those flaws become obvious, they will be fixed. In the mean time, I'm looking forward to the end-of-the-season push, which I predict will be more pronounced with the one-game playoff.

[DrewDawg]

Picture this scenario. The order is irrelevant, but let's say the Yankees and Rays tie for the AL East with 99 wins, with the Red Sox finishing 3rd and claiming the 2nd WC spot with 92 wins. We'll say the Yankees have to travel to Tampa for the tiebreaker game, where they lose to the Rays.

Now, you've got a 99 win team coming home off a road game the night before, having burned CC Sabathia and any number of their bullpen arms and facing a well-rested Red Sox team's ace and a fully rested bullpen. It looks even worse if you consider that TB and NYY have been clawing up to the end to win the division while the Sox have been locked into their 2nd WC spot for a week.

There's just too many bad scenarios that will come into play under this format whereby competitive advantages are given to teams which don't deserve them.

There will never, ever be a system that completely eliminates the fact that you could come up with a scenario where one team gets "screwed" in a sense.

[Orel Miraculous]

CSN Chicago breaks down how this new format would have altered the playoff landscape in each season dating back to 1995. The most egregious matchup:

2001: Oakland (102-60) vs. Minnesota (85-77)

This is going to happen again, maybe not quite as extreme, but something very close to this is going to happen again. To the posters in this thread who are actually defending this system, how can you possibly justify the above outcome?

Edited by Orel Miraculous, 03 March 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[getfoul]

If a 95-win team has to play an 86-win team in a one-game playoff, here is what those teams and fans have to do:

Before the game, remind yourself you didn't win the division and you're lucky to have this opportunity to get in the playoffs.

If you win, wipe your brow (whew), pop champagne, and celebrate making the playoffs

If you lose, remind yourself you didn't win the division and that no system is fair short of eliminating divisions and playing a true balanced schedule.

It's entertainment. This new system will reward true division winners, bring more teams into the race for the 2nd wildcard, and create a lot more drama in September for division races.

Some years we'll wish we had the old system, but most years this is going to be exciting to watch down the stretch, and the Play-In Games will be nail-biting for the teams that are in it. Again, it's entertainment. Enjoy it for what it is.

Edited by getfoul, 03 March 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[BucketOBalls]

There will never, ever be a system that completely eliminates the fact that you could come up with a scenario where one team gets "screwed" in a sense.

Well, you can change the degree though. With this system you an have the second best team in MLB in a one game playoff with the worst playoff team in MLB. If you seed by record, the worst that can happen is 4th best team in MLB vs the worst playoff team, which woudld be considerably closer. In 2001 your one game playoff in the AL goes from a 102 win team vs an 85 win team to a 91 win team vs an 85 win team. Quite a bit better for one of your worst cases.

First time a 95 win teams gets knocked out by an 85 win team in the one-game playoff while some crap team wins their division with 89 wins there will be wailing and knashing of teeth.

This also gives the top seed almost a direct pass to the LCS as they could end up facing a weaker team that has just used their best pitcher. While the playoff game will get good ratings, it could hurt those of other series, which can become worse matchups. Not sure which way is better.