Things about Baseball which could be interpreted as random

by **bleh** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:32:11

MUST HAVE RED SOX IN POSTSEASON

But I agree it's not bad. At the least it's good from the current Phils' perspective.

by **Soren** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:33:15

bleh wrote:MUST HAVE RED SOX IN POSTSEASON

by **SideshowBob** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:34:22

Bucky wrote:Negatives:

-longer playoffs
-imagine the plethora of tiebreaker scenarios possible

From what I hear, they are talking about a 1 game wild card play-in, probably on (say) Tuesday of the current schedule. Wouldn't lengthen the playoffs at all (maybe by a day).

As for the second point, I think they are talking about getting rid of extra games for tiebreakers and just using an NFL style (head to head, division, league results, etc.) to tie break. I have mixed feelings about that, but I'd take it to make winning the Wild Card less desirable than winning the division.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:37:02

I'm sure someone has posted this before (from clickthru on a google ad at bottom of the forum page)

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 13:00:03

I think it is a good idea so that there is a bitter thread every two months or so on fugees about how the Mets would have been able to take advantage of this in 2007 and 2008 and no one would remember them as chokers and the Phillies would have never won the World Series or some crazy ish like that

by **joe table** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 13:02:40

I like the idea but a best of 3 would be better IMO. They could even make Games 1 and 2 a doubleheader (that would be fun)

I know the season goes late enough anyway though. Move it up a week OR (gasp) go back to 155 games

by **Grotewold** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 13:05:39

If the Phillies ever won 96 games but not the NL East and then dropped a play-in game against the 88-win Cardinals, I would be pretty pissed.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 14:48:09

Grotewold wrote:If the Phillies ever won 96 games but not the NL East and then dropped a play-in game against the 88-win Cardinals, I would be pretty pissed.

Yeah, but if it happened to the Braves or Mets, that would be awesome.

by **SideshowBob** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 15:24:19

TenuredVulture wrote:
Grotewold wrote:If the Phillies ever won 96 games but not the NL East and then dropped a play-in game against the 88-win Cardinals, I would be pretty pissed.

Yeah, but if it happened to the Braves or Mets, that would be awesome.

Or if the Phillies were the 88 win team that would otherwise not be in the playoffs.

Anyhow, if they want to avoid that situation, then the Phillies should win more than 96 games and win the division so it's not an issue. If you don't win your division, I don't see the point in crying over being at a disadvantage in the playoffs. There should be some clear benefit for winning your division versus being a wild card, more than just one fewer home game in a series.

by **Grotewold** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 15:35:58

SideshowBob wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
Grotewold wrote:If the Phillies ever won 96 games but not the NL East and then dropped a play-in game against the 88-win Cardinals, I would be pretty pissed.

Yeah, but if it happened to the Braves or Mets, that would be awesome.

Or if the Phillies were the 88 win team that would otherwise not be in the playoffs.

Anyhow, if they want to avoid that situation, then the Phillies should win more than 96 games and win the division so it's not an issue. If you don't win your division, I don't see the point in crying over being at a disadvantage in the playoffs. There should be some clear benefit for winning your division versus being a wild card, more than just one fewer home game in a series.

My problem with that is you can't on one hand say it's vital to win your division (ie, the regular season is vital and you can't just coast in as a wild card) and then on the other subject a team that was eight games better than the runner up over the course of that vital regular season to a play-in game.

And then once that game is over, we're right back to the current system (division winners hosting five-game DS series). So you're really punishing the #1 wild card team in a given year more than you are rewarding the division winners. Using your ace in the play-in game hurts but isn't that big a deal if you can pitch him in games 2 and 5.

I'd just keep the current system. If anything, make the divisional series seven games.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 15:48:39

There's another wrinkle--it really rewards the team with the best record in the league, as their first round opponent will not get a chance to set its rotation--the team with the best record will have a significantly easier road to the LCS. Since that's the case, they ought to do away with the rule that you can't play someone from your own division in LDS round.

by **Barry Jive** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 17:58:39

Cool post in the B-R Stat of the Day blog. Lists the Top Ten 1-2-3 pitching combos in the LCS since the strike, ordered by WAR. H2O is number 6 on the list.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8682

I like how you get a full range of great trios within the top three. The '01 D-Backs were a prime example of a 1-2 so good that it doesn't matter so much who the 3 (in this case, Miguel Batista) was. On the other hand, the '96 Braves were balanced through their top 3, with Glavine having the lowest mark at 5.6 WAR.

Coincidentally, Oswalt is also in the #2 (Clemens-Pettitte-Oswalt). List gets weird near the end (Sabathia-Carmona-Westbrook, Brown-Ashby-Hitchcock).

Good news for us, though. Only one team ahead of us (the '97 Braves) didn't win their LCS.

by **Wheels Tupay** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 18:56:13

Grotewold wrote:There are rumors that Selig has already agreed to adding another wild card in each league starting next year. The two wild cards in each league would have a "play-in" game, with the loser going home and the winner facing the top division winner next.

IDK about this. Only one game is really weird. I would be pretty pissed if the Phillies were the 1st WC team and then lost one game to the second wildcard team after outplaying them for 162 games.

Edit - Goto, already pointed this out. sorry

by **drsmooth** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:17:07

MLB.com wrote:MLB.com analyst Scott Eyre sits down with host Jeremy Brisiel as they break down the upcoming Yankees-Rangers and Giants-Phillies matchups.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:26:48

SideshowBob wrote:
Bucky wrote:Negatives:

-longer playoffs
-imagine the plethora of tiebreaker scenarios possible

From what I hear, they are talking about a 1 game wild card play-in, probably on (say) Tuesday of the current schedule. Wouldn't lengthen the playoffs at all (maybe by a day).

As for the second point, I think they are talking about getting rid of extra games for tiebreakers and just using an NFL style (head to head, division, league results, etc.) to tie break. I have mixed feelings about that, but I'd take it to make winning the Wild Card less desirable than winning the division.

A one-game playoff is stupid, IMHO. Essentially what they're saying is there is a tie for the wild card every year from now on.

I actually think an interesting thing for baseball to do to give teams that do better during the regular season appropriate advantages that would ALSO be unique to the sport would be to "Handicap" series. Take, for example, the hypothetical 96-win team that doesn't win its division, and the 88-win "runner up" team that the current proposal would have them play in a one-time for-all-the-marbles situation. I think it would be better, fairer, and more interesting for baseball to come up with a method for handicapping such a series: the 96-win team, say, has only to win once to advance, but the 88-win team has to win twice, for example (it's like starting the weaker team in a 0-1 or 0-2 hole).

Honestly, I think it might be interesting to do the same thing with the divisonal round. Leave the NLCS and World Series as they are.

by **lethal** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:36:42

mozartpc27 wrote:
SideshowBob wrote:
Bucky wrote:Negatives:

-longer playoffs
-imagine the plethora of tiebreaker scenarios possible

From what I hear, they are talking about a 1 game wild card play-in, probably on (say) Tuesday of the current schedule. Wouldn't lengthen the playoffs at all (maybe by a day).

As for the second point, I think they are talking about getting rid of extra games for tiebreakers and just using an NFL style (head to head, division, league results, etc.) to tie break. I have mixed feelings about that, but I'd take it to make winning the Wild Card less desirable than winning the division.

A one-game playoff is stupid, IMHO. Essentially what they're saying is there is a tie for the wild card every year from now on.

I actually think an interesting thing for baseball to do to give teams that do better during the regular season appropriate advantages that would ALSO be unique to the sport would be to "Handicap" series. Take, for example, the hypothetical 96-win team that doesn't win its division, and the 88-win "runner up" team that the current proposal would have them play in a one-time for-all-the-marbles situation. I think it would be better, fairer, and more interesting for baseball to come up with a method for handicapping such a series: the 96-win team, say, has only to win once to advance, but the 88-win team has to win twice, for example (it's like starting the weaker team in a 0-1 or 0-2 hole).

Honestly, I think it might be interesting to do the same thing with the divisonal round. Leave the NLCS and World Series as they are.

Stark talks about a 2nd wild card all the time. It would've been great as an incentive to win the AL East, for instance. Winner get home field advantage, loser has to play Boston/Chicago. Also, there would've been a race for the last spot between Boston and Chicago.

In the NL, it would've reduced the drama a little as San Diego and Atlanta would've both been wild cards, but the SF-SD race would've been to stay out of the WC game/round.

I think its a great idea. It gives the division winners an advantage over a WC. It gives the team with the best record an advantage of playing a team that has had to play an extra round and tired out their pitchers.

Eliminate the prohibition of playing a team from your own division in the 1st round and I love the idea.

Here's this year's Stark article. It talks about Best of 3 vs Single game, etc.

by **Bucky** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:48:37

Love the Stark article. He took about 700 more words to say exactly what I was trying to say. Agree 100%.

by **BigEd76** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 22:10:53

Miller and Morgan may not be renewed by ESPN :!:

by **joe table** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 00:10:53

Ted Lilly signed a 3 year contract extension with LAD

by **philliesphhan** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 03:08:39

jerseyhoya wrote:I think it is a good idea so that there is a bitter thread every two months or so on fugees about how the Mets would have been able to take advantage of this in 2007 and 2008 and no one would remember them as chokers and the Phillies would have never won the World Series or some crazy ish like that

Oddly, 2007 would have been the same for the Mets even with the extra wild card as the Rockies and Padres played an extra game anyway.

I'm not sure I like the idea of two wild cards at all. Seems like it would actually make the final weeks LESS interesting. It sure would have been convenient for the Phillies in 05 and 06, but at the same time, the only interesting part would be the extra game. Next closest team after the Phillies in 05 was 5 games back, and the 82 win Padres still get to the postseason with no problem anyway.

Years like this one would also be tricky. There's the first wild card team, then there are two others with 93 wins each. What happens then?

Archived

Things about Baseball which could be interpreted as random