I hate the wild card
Gary S. Simon
Considering that the Cubs and Red sox are two of the three major
league baseball teams I root for, perhaps I should avoid criticizing a
playoff format that gives my favorite teams a good shot at the
post0season.
But I'm a baseball fan, raised on pennant races. As such, I abhor
the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox are not engaged in a battle to the
death down the stretch.
brink
"Gary S. Simon" <gars...@thisisatypo.pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:garscosi-172F15...@news3.east.earthlink.net...
even though it's practically a "battle to the death" anyway for the
"meaningless" division crown?
and even though there's a good chance they'll be meeting in the ALCS in a
"battle to the death" with even higher stakes?
McDuck
quacked:
Nicely put. Who could ask for more intensity than we are seeing. I can
see some different arrangements that might be better than the wind
card, but they are not easy to make work over time. The WC is v.
flexible and seems to have worked v. well over the years.
--McDuck
Fred Burton
Gary S. Simon wrote in message ...
Bah. The Wild Card is the best thing that MLB has done in decades. If not
for the Wild Card, September would be the month of baseball boredom. The
Cardinals would be 5 miles ahead of whoever was in their division.
The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right down
to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
Steve Grant
news:ciiq10$eru$1...@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> Bah. The Wild Card is the best thing that MLB has done in decades. If
not
> for the Wild Card, September would be the month of baseball boredom. The
> Cardinals would be 5 miles ahead of whoever was in their division.
Yes indeed. Thanks to the wild card, the Cardinals are only 8.04672
kilometers ahead of whoever is in their division.
David Marc Nieporent
>> Considering that the Cubs and Red sox are two of the three major
>>league baseball teams I root for, perhaps I should avoid criticizing a
>>playoff format that gives my favorite teams a good shot at the
>>post0season.
>> But I'm a baseball fan, raised on pennant races. As such, I abhor
>>the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox are not engaged in a battle to the
>>death down the stretch.
>Bah. The Wild Card is the best thing that MLB has done in decades. If not
>for the Wild Card, September would be the month of baseball boredom.
*Because* of the wild card, September is baseball boredom. Yankees-Red Sox
isn't interesting because of that.
> The
>Cardinals would be 5 miles ahead of whoever was in their division.
As they should be.
>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right
>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs. That's
bad for baseball.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Theo's Evil Twin
news:nieporen-438933...@individual.net...
I'm just curious which teams you are referring to. It seems the wild card
teams have done really well in the playoffs so I'm just curious which teams
you are talking about. It's not like it is the NHL or NBA where there are
definitely teams that make the playoffs that have absolutely no shot at
winning a championship. I think the wild card is great.
Ryan Robbins
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-438933...@individual.net...
>>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
>
> No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
> allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs. That's
> bad for baseball.
The wild card is good because it helps get the best teams into the playoffs,
preventing at least one team from being a victim of geographic circumstance.
John Doherty
Nieporent wrote:
[re: wild-card playoff spots]
> No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention.
In contention for what?
> It allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the
> playoffs.
Making the playoffs is what teams contend for during the regular
season. You seem to be saying that teams that are not in contention
for making the playoffs nonetheless do. How could that be?
The only way your statement makes sense is if we assume that teams are
not actually in contention for the World Series Championship as
defined by Major League baseball, but are in instead in contention
for some other completely hypothetical goal that you have in mind.
I don't know what that hypothetical goal is. You'd have to explain
that.
> That's bad for baseball.
Yeah, whatever.
--
gn...@bigdogispnospam.com
"Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Nq83d.1260$kn2.259@trndny07...
Well then it would be much fairer if they went back to two divisions per
league. Then allow the two non-division winners with the best records in as
wildcards even if they come from the same division.
Chris Zabel
news:garscosi-172F15...@news3.east.earthlink.net...
>
While most baseball traditionalists hate the wild card, let's be honest
about the purpose of the wild card. It was clearly designed to appeal to
the casual fan and increase interest in the playoffs among that particular
group. Few that post to this group can be characterized as "casual fans of
the game".
--
"They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter
whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the
truth?" - Dostoevsky
David Marc Nieporent
"Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>>>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right
>>>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
>> No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
>> allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs. That's
>> bad for baseball.
>The wild card is good because it helps get the best teams into the playoffs,
>preventing at least one team from being a victim of geographic circumstance.
That would be the case if getting the best teams into the playoffs were the
point. But it isn't; if it were, it wouldn't make any sense to have
divisions at all. The point is to get champions into the playoffs. Wild
card teams are losers; they don't belong in the playoffs. "Geographic
circumstance" is no different than any other "circumstance"; the goal of
teams is to win given what circumstances they face.
Bryan S. Slick
[Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:38:05 -0400]
:>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right
:>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
:
:No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
:allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs. That's
:bad for baseball.
"contention" in this instance refers to ability to reach the playoffs,
not simply to win the division.
A smart guy like you should be able to figure that out.
--
Bryan S. Slick, usenet at slick-family dot net
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Bryan S. Slick
[Sun, 19 Sep 2004 05:03:41 GMT]
:
:"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
Precisely. It was horrible when the Giants sat out with 103 wins, while
teams from other divisions with significantly less wins got to go.
Utter nonsense.. that probably helped in the creation of the Wild Card.
Theo's Evil Twin
If this is what they teach you at Princeton I am highly disappointed in the
quality of their education. What wild card teams have made the playoffs
that did not belong there? I was curious so I checked the records of the
wild card teams that have made the playoffs since the wild card spot began.
Approximately half of the teams that I saw had better records than the
winners of the other divisions. A good example is last year's Florida
Marlins team finished the season with a better record than the Chicago Cubs
and last year's Red Sox had a better record than the Minnesota Twins. There
is no logic behind you saying that wild card teams don't belong in the
playoffs. Of course you are a troll so I don't know why I'm wasting my
time.
Kenny
news:Uk93d.6620$mb6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Gary S. Simon" <gars...@thisisatypo.pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:garscosi-172F15...@news3.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Considering that the Cubs and Red sox are two of the three major
> > league baseball teams I root for, perhaps I should avoid criticizing a
> > playoff format that gives my favorite teams a good shot at the
> > post0season.
> >
> > But I'm a baseball fan, raised on pennant races. As such, I abhor
> > the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox are not engaged in a battle to the
> > death down the stretch.
>
> While most baseball traditionalists hate the wild card, let's be honest
> about the purpose of the wild card. It was clearly designed to appeal to
> the casual fan and increase interest in the playoffs among that particular
> group. Few that post to this group can be characterized as "casual fans
of
> the game".
There is no point in hating the wild card anymore when my team frequently
benefits from it. I love the wild card. Marlins fans love the wild card too.
Angels fans love the wild card. You can say you hate the wild card and then
you can watch your team win the World Series because of it. I promise you
won't hate the wild card anymore. :-)
Kenny
McDuck
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> quacked:
>
>>Bah. The Wild Card is the best thing that MLB has done in decades. If not
>>for the Wild Card, September would be the month of baseball boredom.
>
>*Because* of the wild card, September is baseball boredom. Yankees-Red Sox
>isn't interesting because of that.
>
I'm sorry if the extremely exciting (to me) rivalry between Boston and
NYYis boring to you. But you have to understand that you are in a
decided minority, perhaps a minority of one. The games are getting
high TV ratings, the stadiums are full to overflowing, the ng is
active, the talk radio shows are obsessing over minor details, and
baseball fans all over are talking about the rivalry with great
intensity.
Would the intensity be greater if the RS needed to catch NYY to get to
the playoffs? I truly doubt it. Part of the intensity is due to what
happened in game 7 last year, and that would not have happened without
the WC.
--McDuck
HJ
> "Gary S. Simon" <gars...@thisisatypo.pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:garscosi-172F15...@news3.east.earthlink.net...
>
>> Considering that the Cubs and Red sox are two of the three major
>>league baseball teams I root for, perhaps I should avoid criticizing a
>>playoff format that gives my favorite teams a good shot at the
>>post0season.
>>
>> But I'm a baseball fan, raised on pennant races. As such, I abhor
>>the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox are not engaged in a battle to the
>>death down the stretch.
>
>
> While most baseball traditionalists hate the wild card, let's be honest
> about the purpose of the wild card. It was clearly designed to appeal to
> the casual fan and increase interest in the playoffs among that particular
> group. Few that post to this group can be characterized as "casual fans of
> the game".
No, it was specifically intended to increase TV revenues from the
additional round of playoff games. "Fan interest", while a frequent
buzz word bandied about by Bud, holds virtually *no* sway with the
current MLB administration. Only the fear of fan revolt or revocation
of the anti-trust exemption by Congress moves them from their appointed
course to divorce baseball from its every tradional root.
> "They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter
> whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the
> truth?" - Dostoevsky
>
--
HJ
yastrzemski
at
insightbb
dot
com
Paul G. Wenthold
> [David Marc Nieporent (niep...@alumni.princeton.edu)]
> [Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:38:05 -0400]
>
> :>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right
> :>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
> :
> :No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
> :allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs. That's
> :bad for baseball.
>
> "contention" in this instance refers to ability to reach the playoffs,
> not simply to win the division.
>
Hey, let's just have 230 playoff spots? That way, everyone can always
be in contention!
paul
Steve Grant
news:PWg3d.6427$n16....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> What wild card teams have made the playoffs that did not belong there?
All of them.
David Marc Nieporent
Bryan S. Slick <use...@slick-family.not> wrote:
>[Ryan Robbins (redbi...@verizon.net)]
>:"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>:>>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right
>:>>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
>:> No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
>:> allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs. That's
>:> bad for baseball.
>:The wild card is good because it helps get the best teams into the playoffs,
>:preventing at least one team from being a victim of geographic circumstance.
>Precisely. It was horrible when the Giants sat out with 103 wins, while
>teams from other divisions with significantly less wins got to go.
>Utter nonsense.. that probably helped in the creation of the Wild Card.
No, it was excellent when that happened. That meant months of excitement
during a great pennant race. That's what baseball is about.
David Marc Nieporent
"Theo's Evil Twin" <theois...@redsox.com> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> "Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right
>>>>>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
>>>> No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
>>>> allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs.
>>>> That's bad for baseball.
>>>The wild card is good because it helps get the best teams into the
>>>playoffs, preventing at least one team from being a victim of geographic
>>>circumstance.
>> That would be the case if getting the best teams into the playoffs were the
>> point. But it isn't; if it were, it wouldn't make any sense to have
>> divisions at all. The point is to get champions into the playoffs. Wild
>> card teams are losers; they don't belong in the playoffs. "Geographic
>> circumstance" is no different than any other "circumstance"; the goal of
>> teams is to win given what circumstances they face.
>If this is what they teach you at Princeton I am highly disappointed in the
>quality of their education.
You may have taken classes in spectator sports in college; I did not.
>What wild card teams have made the playoffs
>that did not belong there?
All of them. By definition. They didn't finish first, so they didn't
belong in the playoffs.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
David Marc Nieporent
HJ <leavem...@bugoff.net> wrote:
>Chris Zabel wrote:
>> "Gary S. Simon" <gars...@thisisatypo.pipeline.com> wrote in message
>>> Considering that the Cubs and Red sox are two of the three major
>>>league baseball teams I root for, perhaps I should avoid criticizing a
>>>playoff format that gives my favorite teams a good shot at the
>>>post0season.
>>> But I'm a baseball fan, raised on pennant races. As such, I abhor
>>>the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox are not engaged in a battle to the
>>>death down the stretch.
>> While most baseball traditionalists hate the wild card, let's be honest
>> about the purpose of the wild card. It was clearly designed to appeal to
>> the casual fan and increase interest in the playoffs among that particular
>> group. Few that post to this group can be characterized as "casual fans of
>> the game".
>No, it was specifically intended to increase TV revenues from the
>additional round of playoff games. "Fan interest", while a frequent
>buzz word bandied about by Bud, holds virtually *no* sway with the
>current MLB administration. Only the fear of fan revolt or revocation
>of the anti-trust exemption by Congress moves them from their appointed
>course to divorce baseball from its every tradional root.
What distinction do you think there is between "fan interest" and
"increased TV revenues"? Where do you think said revenues come from?
The problem, rather, is that the owners don't care what *kind* of fans
they're drawing interest from. The wild card is meant for casual fans who
don't like baseball enough to watch unless their team is going to make the
postseason. They don't care how much die-hard fans like it, because they
figure that die-hard fans will watch baseball no matter how much it changes.
Roger Moore
>>No, it was specifically intended to increase TV revenues from the
>>additional round of playoff games. "Fan interest", while a frequent
>>buzz word bandied about by Bud, holds virtually *no* sway with the
>>current MLB administration. Only the fear of fan revolt or revocation
>>of the anti-trust exemption by Congress moves them from their appointed
>>course to divorce baseball from its every tradional root.
>What distinction do you think there is between "fan interest" and
>"increased TV revenues"? Where do you think said revenues come from?
There are two possible sources of increased revenues. One is "increased
fan interest" and the other is "increased exploitation of existing fan
interest". The Wild Card may potentially do both. It may increase fan
interest by providing something that casual fans find attractive, but it
may also provide extra games that hardcore fans are inclined to watch.
You don't like the Wild Card, but I bet that you put your feelings aside
every year and watch the Division Series. That means that you're watching
more games than you otherwise would have even though you claim that your
interest has been diminished!
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
Dvd Avins
news:cikonj$ps5$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> writes:
<snip>
> There are two possible sources of increased revenues. One is "increased
> fan interest" and the other is "increased exploitation of existing fan
> interest". The Wild Card may potentially do both. It may increase fan
> interest by providing something that casual fans find attractive, but it
> may also provide extra games that hardcore fans are inclined to watch.
> You don't like the Wild Card, but I bet that you put your feelings aside
> every year and watch the Division Series. That means that you're watching
> more games than you otherwise would have even though you claim that your
> interest has been diminished!
I am less assiduous in following the Yankees in this September (and many
other Septembers) than I would be if they actually had to finish ahead of
the Sox to advance. This would've been a heluva race.
brink
>
> >What wild card teams have made the playoffs
> >that did not belong there?
>
> All of them. By definition. They didn't finish first, so they didn't
> belong in the playoffs.
as of now, which teams "belong" in the playoffs? the division leaders? or
just yankees and cardinals?
Ryan Robbins
> All of them. By definition. They didn't finish first, so they didn't
> belong in the playoffs.
So we should go back to the days when the team with the best record in the
American League plays the team with the best record in the National League
for the World Series title? Or should we just declare champion the team that
has the best record in all of baseball, skipping the Series?
David Marc Nieporent
"Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> All of them. By definition. They didn't finish first, so they didn't
>> belong in the playoffs.
>So we should go back to the days when the team with the best record in the
>American League plays the team with the best record in the National League
>for the World Series title?
I would have no problem with that.
>Or should we just declare champion the team that
>has the best record in all of baseball, skipping the Series?
No; that wouldn't make any sense, since records from different leagues
aren't comparable.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Bryan S. Slick <use...@slick-family.not> wrote:
:>Precisely. It was horrible when the Giants sat out with 103 wins, while
:>teams from other divisions with significantly less wins got to go.
:>Utter nonsense.. that probably helped in the creation of the Wild Card.
: No, it was excellent when that happened. That meant months of excitement
: during a great pennant race. That's what baseball is about.
As a huge Giants fan, I have to agree.
Look, there's a real issue that Selig is facing. With 30 teams, you
really wouldn't want two single-division leagues; you might have great
pennant races, but lots of teams are going to be out of it really quickly.
Once you break into divisions (or leagues, but most everyone treats the
leagues as natural and pre-ordained), you immediately come up against a
real dilemma: do you want to insure "fairness" of the type that the '93
Giants, and not the '93 Phillies, get a postseason spot? Or do you want
to make the season interesting and meaningful?
The current system is a mixture of those things, and gets plenty wrong --
but, unlike, say, the business with the All Star Game, the system is a
reaction to real problems that come with a large league.
IMO, there are only two workable solutions. One would be something that
makes the postseason seeding meaningful (such as making WC teams win an
extra game). The other would be to switch to a promotion/relegation
system. Given all the difficulties in imposing the latter into US sports
in general and MLB in particular, I think you have to go with the former.
But at any rate, simply pointing out problems with either the current
system or the 1969-2003 system is of limited use; both systems are
compromises between two very legitimate impulses.
JHB
Roger Moore
>IMO, there are only two workable solutions. One would be something that
>makes the postseason seeding meaningful (such as making WC teams win an
>extra game).
The suggestion that I like most is to have two WC teams who play each
other in a one-game playoff for the right to continue. WC races have
typically been open enough that it wouldn't drastically reduce the
excitement of the WC race, and it gives the division champs a substantial
advantage over the WC teams.
Pat McLean
"Dvd Avins" <dvdNOav...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:40n3d.1511$kn2.1371@trndny07...
But supposedly the wisdom of the "fre thinking, openminded, 'today" kind of
baseball fan" is that the loser of that race getting into the playoffs is
better and more exciting, than the month of september being their
playoff.....
James Kahn
>Once you break into divisions (or leagues, but most everyone treats the
>leagues as natural and pre-ordained), you immediately come up against a
>real dilemma: do you want to insure "fairness" of the type that the '93
>Giants, and not the '93 Phillies, get a postseason spot? Or do you want
>to make the season interesting and meaningful?
>The current system is a mixture of those things, and gets plenty wrong --
>but, unlike, say, the business with the All Star Game, the system is a
>reaction to real problems that come with a large league.
>IMO, there are only two workable solutions. One would be something that
>makes the postseason seeding meaningful (such as making WC teams win an
>extra game). The other would be to switch to a promotion/relegation
>system. Given all the difficulties in imposing the latter into US sports
>in general and MLB in particular, I think you have to go with the former.
Only two? What was wrong with the system in the 70's? Two divisions
in each league, one round of playoffs before the WS. That makes for
a higher percentage of teams going to the postseason than in most
of MLB history (i.e. through 1968), so it solves the "large league"
problem, and each team that goes to the playoffs is a division champion.
Also, make sure the schedule is unbalanced (most games should be intra-
division), so that the divisions mean something.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: In <cilais$2077$1...@agate.berkeley.edu> <j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
:>IMO, there are only two workable solutions. One would be something that
:>makes the postseason seeding meaningful (such as making WC teams win an
:>extra game). The other would be to switch to a promotion/relegation
:>system. Given all the difficulties in imposing the latter into US sports
:>in general and MLB in particular, I think you have to go with the former.
: Only two? What was wrong with the system in the 70's? Two divisions
: in each league, one round of playoffs before the WS. That makes for
: a higher percentage of teams going to the postseason than in most
: of MLB history (i.e. through 1968), so it solves the "large league"
: problem, and each team that goes to the playoffs is a division champion.
: Also, make sure the schedule is unbalanced (most games should be intra-
: division), so that the divisions mean something.
It doesn't especially bother *me*, but a lot of people are bothered by the
unfairness of the 1993 Giants/Phillies situation.
I strongly suspect that the reason it doesn't bother me is because I
basically started following baseball in 1969. There's a logical argument
on our side for why sacrificing that particular unfairness is the lesser
evil, but I think those who argue that it is unfair are basically correct.
JHB
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: <j...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
:>IMO, there are only two workable solutions. One would be something that
:>makes the postseason seeding meaningful (such as making WC teams win an
:>extra game).
: The suggestion that I like most is to have two WC teams who play each
: other in a one-game playoff for the right to continue. WC races have
: typically been open enough that it wouldn't drastically reduce the
: excitement of the WC race, and it gives the division champs a substantial
: advantage over the WC teams.
I agree that the 2WC, one-game playoff idea is a successful solution.
It's not my favorite solution. It still leaves three small divisions,
with the fairly good chance that one of the division winners will be a
worse team than the best team that doesn't advance. Three small or
smallish divisions also reduces the chances of a great pennant race
between two great teams. And while it works in principle, I'd be awfully
annoyed if I was a fan of a '93 Giants and they were knocked out in one
game by a team that won 88 games (and I suspect that if that happened
twice in a few years, there would be pressure to expand further to protect
the "real" WC. Especially if the #2 WC was able to set it's rotation,
while the other one was exhausted from the pennant race).
My favorite solution is still: two divisions, 1st place team in one plays
2nd place in the other, but the 2nd place team gets few if any home games,
and has to win an extra game. It does allow a reasonable chance that the
top four teams won't be the four teams that advance, and some people will
be very annoyed if a 2nd place team has a real disadvantage in trying to
beat a "worse" 1st place team. But I like the rest of it.
I'd love to see some results of simulations to find which of these methods
is likely to produce better races, to keep more teams alive deeper into
the season, and to increase the odds of better teams reaching the World
Series.
JHB
David Marc Nieporent
I think they're pretty obviously _in_correct as long as the schedule is
unbalanced. (Which it wasn't, admittedly, in 1993.) And I think people
recognize that, at least implicitly. Very few people who complain about
such "unfairness" suggest that the playoff choices be equalized between
_leagues_, after all. Nobody says that the top two non-division winners
should be the wild cards regardless of which league they happen to be in.
Ryan Robbins
"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:cilj5t$rv6$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> problem, and each team that goes to the playoffs is a division champion.
A division champion isn't necessarily one of the best teams in a league,
which is why there should be a wild card. The playoffs are about having the
best teams, not artificial champs.
David Marc Nieporent
>> problem, and each team that goes to the playoffs is a division champion.
>A division champion isn't necessarily one of the best teams in a league,
>which is why there should be a wild card. The playoffs are about having the
>best teams, not artificial champs.
Well, no, of course they're not. If they were, then there would be no
point to having divisions at all.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
:>It doesn't especially bother *me*, but a lot of people are bothered by the
:>unfairness of the 1993 Giants/Phillies situation.
:>I strongly suspect that the reason it doesn't bother me is because I
:>basically started following baseball in 1969. There's a logical argument
:>on our side for why sacrificing that particular unfairness is the lesser
:>evil, but I think those who argue that it is unfair are basically correct.
: I think they're pretty obviously _in_correct as long as the schedule is
: unbalanced. (Which it wasn't, admittedly, in 1993.) And I think people
: recognize that, at least implicitly. Very few people who complain about
: such "unfairness" suggest that the playoff choices be equalized between
: _leagues_, after all. Nobody says that the top two non-division winners
: should be the wild cards regardless of which league they happen to be in.
I think you're wrong, David.
The unbalanced schedule does obscure it, but one team is still going to be
better than the other -- and no one is talking about moving to a schedule
in which divisions within the same league don't play each other, which has
basically always been the case with the separate leagues.
Of course, one of the other differences between divisions and leagues is
that a league pennant has always been a worthwhile achievement, while
division titles are far less so.
And for historical reasons, people accepted the leagues as separate,
regardless of whether it was logical or not.
So: there are reasons, some logical, some not, why no one cares about the
mild unfairness in cases such as the '54 Yankees. Not that I'm
complaining about that one.
But, sure it is unfair. And when you just look within the leagues, the
unfairness is even more obvious. Again, I don't think it's that big a
deal, and given the choice I'd very readily accept it if I could achieve
other goals. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
JHB
Perry Sailor
> In article <XVo3d.2270$HH5.584@trndny05>,
> "Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>
> >> All of them. By definition. They didn't finish first, so they didn't
> >> belong in the playoffs.
>
> >So we should go back to the days when the team with the best record in
the
> >American League plays the team with the best record in the National
League
> >for the World Series title?
>
> I would have no problem with that.
I would have no problem with that *if there were no divisions and everyone
played a common schedule*.
> >Or should we just declare champion the team that
> >has the best record in all of baseball, skipping the Series?
>
> No; that wouldn't make any sense, since records from different leagues
> aren't comparable.
Exactly. Really, the only time a playoff series makes sense is when it pits
teams who were champions of whatever grouping they were in, but who played
different schedules. The old no-divisions setup did this when it had the
league champions proceed directly to the World Series. So did the
divisional setup that began in 1969, until they started using a balanced
schedule in the AL, at which point the ALCS became a gimmick. Going back to
the unbalanced schedules would have helped, but then they blew it by
including a wild card.
Perry
--
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mohandas Gandhi
http://www.afsc.org/
Richard R. Hershberger
<cynic mode on>
This discussion is predicated on the notion that the purpose of the
whole process is to determine which team is best and to reward that
team. What possible reason do we have to suspect that The Lords of
Baseball care one whit or tittle about such things?
<cynic mode off>
You aren't going far enough: Combine the two leagues (as if they
weren't already), play a completely balanced schedule with each pair
of teams playing the same number of home and away games. The team
with the best record at the end of the season takes home the flag.
This is, in fact, how they used to do it.
In practice, of course, The Lords of Baseball are going to make the
whole process look more and more like the NHL. And see how well that
has worked out!
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
The bigger issue is that the easier it is to make the playoffs, the
less meaningful the regular season is. This is one thing with a short
season like the NFL has: a few upsets can make a difference, the
seeding for the playoffs is significant, and things don't drag on
forever. These combine to keep the regular season interesting. The
NBA or the NHL, on the other hand, have long and nearly meaningless
regular seasons. A lot of people only get interested once the
playoffs begin, and I don't blame them. Do you watch the qualifying
heats in racing sports? Probably not, unless you are an avid fan. So
why watch the qualifying round (aka "the regular season") of the NHL?
I'm not saying that MLB has gotten to this point, but at some time in
the future the owners are going to look at the potential revenue from
another round of playoffs. Will they balance this with the long term
danger of a watered-down regular season? Yeah, right.
Richard R. Hershberger
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
[...]
: The bigger issue is that the easier it is to make the playoffs, the
: less meaningful the regular season is.
That's basically true. I agree that it's a "bigger issue", but OTOH it's
not the only issue. My whole point s that there are real trade-offs
involved, unless you use an unorthodox solution.
[...]
: I'm not saying that MLB has gotten to this point, but at some time in
: the future the owners are going to look at the potential revenue from
: another round of playoffs. Will they balance this with the long term
: danger of a watered-down regular season? Yeah, right.
They obviously should; they make a lot of money on the regular season.
Remember that it's in MLB's interest to appeal to the fans. They may make
poor choices, but generally they are trying to get people to watch and
attend. It's true that there can be conflicts between the interests of
hard-core fans and MLB, but there are few conflicts between the interests
of fans in general and MLB.
Meanwhile, I don't see a lot of network money bidding for another round of
playoffs. I think Selig is capable of getting it stuck in his head that
baseball needs to do any number of dumb things -- Selig seems to be really
attracted to shiny rocks -- but it's not really an issue of greed.
JHB
McDuck
Hershberger) quacked:
>
>In practice, of course, The Lords of Baseball are going to make the
>whole process look more and more like the NHL. And see how well that
>has worked out!
>
There is no need for cynicism. The WC has worked remarkably well is
prolonging interest inthe regular season. The NHL would do well to
emulate MLB instead of putting so many teams in the playoffs. As a
practical matter, you have two choices: put a lot of teams into the
playoffs by having small divisions and a lot of division champtions,
or cutting down on the number of division champs and having a wild
card. You are almost certain to get better teams in the playoffs and
have the regular seasons mean more by using the wild card.
One can have philosophical objections to the WC or objections based on
tradition. I respect those arguments. But it is nutty to object on the
ground that the WC has reduced interest in the regular season, for
casual fans or for hard-core fans like us. Look at all the hard-core
fans who were intensely interested in the recent series in the Bronx.
Look at all the people caring about how the Cubs and Marlins and
giants and (perhaps) Astros are doing.
Although one MIGHT suspect that the WC would undermine interest inthe
regular season, it clearly has not done that generally. Perhaps for
one of two people --- I can't speak to that. but not to fans in
general, casual or otherwise. It is true that RS fans are consoled
about the losses in NY this part weekend by the fact that the RS sitll
have a good shot at the WC. But it is nonsense to suggest that the
safety net of the WC killed interest in the games in NY. As I noted,
part of the obvious intensity is due to what happened in game 7 last
yar in the ALCS, and that event could not have occurred but for the
WC.
--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
>
>But at any rate, simply pointing out problems with either the current
>system or the 1969-2003 system is of limited use; both systems are
>compromises between two very legitimate impulses.
>
Insightful post. But I would just add that the present compromise has
worked v. well, and interest inthe regular season has not diminished
as far as we can see. We do not have a situation like hockey or even
basketball. Much closer to football, which has great season rivalry
and also a WC (but with your "fix" to the WC).
I do not have a problem with people not liking the WC out of baseball
tradition or out of some cooncept of fairness. I have no problem with
your suggestion for a relatively minor fix --- some added penalty
besides loss of home field advantage for the WC team. However, I'm
also comfortable with the present system because on the whole it has
been a rocking success.
--McDuck
McDuck
<redbi...@verizon.net> quacked:
Those arguing againt the WC on principle really are arguing against
any playoff. Just play the season, and the team withthe best record is
the winner. We all know that the season is a better judge of a team
than the playoffs, when a team can go hot or cold, etc., or have a
couple of dominant pitchers.
So, once we get by the fact that all playoffs are flawed and a poor
substitue for the regular season, we face up to the reality that a lot
of people get a lot of pleasure watching playoffs. So we devise rules
that maximize the pleasure. On that ground, the WC has been a success.
--McDuck
Brandon Cope
> In article <Nq83d.1260$kn2.259@trndny07>,
> "Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>
> >>>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention right
> >>>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
>
> >> No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
> >> allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs. That's
> >> bad for baseball.
>
> >The wild card is good because it helps get the best teams into the playoffs,
> >preventing at least one team from being a victim of geographic circumstance.
>
> That would be the case if getting the best teams into the playoffs were the
> point. But it isn't; if it were, it wouldn't make any sense to have
> divisions at all. The point is to get champions into the playoffs. Wild
> card teams are losers; they don't belong in the playoffs.
Call the 2003 Marlins and 2002 Angels losers and keep a straight face in doing it.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> "Theo's Evil Twin" <theois...@redsox.com> wrote in message
> news:PWg3d.6427$n16....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > What wild card teams have made the playoffs that did not belong there?
>
> All of them.
Sounds like a whiney Yankees' fan.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> All of them. By definition. They didn't finish first, so they didn't
> belong in the playoffs.
Then you wouldn't object to all teams being thrown into one league and
whoever finishes first (no playoffs) is the champion, right?
Brandon
Steve Grant
news:ca4d1755.0409...@posting.google.com...
This gets my vote as the most misguided r.s.bb post of the month.
Tom MacIntyre
There are things that happen throughout the season, though...trades,
injuries, etc...the teams' fortunes change over the season. Some of it
is luck, and some is good judgement, and some is in combination. The
playoffs determine the overall consequences of these, with the extra
small sample size aspect thrown in for good measure.
Tom
James Kahn
How does that follow? In any case, going to that extreme
creates other problems. You'd need a balanced schedule, and with
30 teams, that means playing each one, say, six times. Fans seem
to prefer a less diffuse schedule.
Brandon Cope
> In <ca4d1755.04092...@posting.google.com> cop...@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) writes:
>
> >David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:<nieporen-4FFC49...@individual.net>...
> >> All of them. By definition. They didn't finish first, so they didn't
> >> belong in the playoffs.
>
> >Then you wouldn't object to all teams being thrown into one league and
> >whoever finishes first (no playoffs) is the champion, right?
>
> How does that follow?
A baseball "purist" tends to only want to reset changes since they
became fans. My point is that a true purist would want the game moved
back to the way it was originally played in 1871.
Brandon
Ima Pseudonym
Or it could be the case that those opposed to the wild card do it for
principled reasons - perhaps they think that the only teams that
should have a chance at winning a championship in the playoffs are
those that were able to win a championship during the regular season -
that there is something incongruous about a second place team becoming
World Series champions.
Richard Gadsden
Sep 2004 10:28:47 -0400, use...@slick-family.not (Bryan S. Slick) wrote:
> [David Marc Nieporent (niep...@alumni.princeton.edu)]
> [Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:38:05 -0400]
>
> :>The Wild Card allows for a LOT of teams to still be in contention
> right
> :>down to the wire and that's GREAT for baseball.
> :
> :No, it doesn't allow for a lot of teams to still be in contention. It
> :allows for teams that *aren't* in contention to make the playoffs.
> That's :bad for baseball.
>
> "contention" in this instance refers to ability to reach the playoffs,
> not simply to win the division.
Actually, contention refers to the possibility of reaching the playoffs
and the possibility of not doing so. The Cardinals and Twins are not "in
contention" any more - they have clinched their playoff spots.
The danger with too many playoff spots is that the best teams will clinch
a playoff spot in August. If there were six playoff spots in each league
this season, the Yankees and Cardinals would have clinched their playoff
spots about Sept. 14-15.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire