ajzepp Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 No, it's not absurd when you play 161 regular season games. That's how it worked for decades and it worked pretty damn well. I agree with Sage but recognize we'll never go back to that, so if there has to be wild cards I think they should be put at a significant disadvantage since they don't deserve to be in the post-season anyway. Do you think the wc teams in the NFL should face the same thing?
bbb Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Do you think the wc teams in the NFL should face the same thing? They do, along with the 3 and 4 seeds. I'd love to see the numbers on this, but it seemed like for the first 10-15 years of the current format, everybody would be excited about their wild card team winning, and then the next week, it was like running into a stone wall. At least 3 of the teams with the bye would win. That for some reason has changed in about the last 5-7 years, and I really don't understand why more wild card teams are having success.
Ramius Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 They do, along with the 3 and 4 seeds. I'd love to see the numbers on this, but it seemed like for the first 10-15 years of the current format, everybody would be excited about their wild card team winning, and then the next week, it was like running into a stone wall. At least 3 of the teams with the bye would win. That for some reason has changed in about the last 5-7 years, and I really don't understand why more wild card teams are having success. Not to hijack this baseball thread, but i think a reason for WC teams having more success if you've got teams like the packers last year where they had everything wrapped up, and their starters got too much rest. With the bye, they went almost a month between real football games. With the WCs, you're seeing teams get hot at the right time (much like in baseball).
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2012 Author Posted October 7, 2012 Do you think the wc teams in the NFL should face the same thing? MLB and NFL are in no way comparable. Baseball plays ten times the # of regular season games.
NoSaint Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Do you think the wc teams in the NFL should face the same thing? Like not getting to play a single game at home?
ajzepp Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) MLB and NFL are in no way comparable. Baseball plays ten times the # of regular season games. Im just a believer that the regular season should be about qualifying and positioning for the post-season. I feel a true champion is one who can perform at their best when the stakes and pressure are highest. I think a home field advantage and/or a first round bye is enough of an edge for the team that had the better regular season, and I think the post season structure should be consistent. The NFL teams qualify for the post season, they're seeded, and then they play a 60 minute game to determine who advances from there. This whole 5 game series, 7 game series, 1 game sudden death back and forth nonsense is bogus, IMO. I'm more concerned about a team winning when it counts as opposed to winning their division by the end of the regular season. Also, in the MLB regular season, you always hear teams talking about winning as many series as they can....they don't say "I hope we can beat the Braves once"...they want to win the series. The idea of a one game sudden death is just too foreign to the game and it potentially gives one player - a dominant pitcher - way too much influence. Edited October 7, 2012 by ajzepp
bbb Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 And, I'm the opposite. I want those 162 games to mean as much as possible. Not to hijack this baseball thread, but i think a reason for WC teams having more success if you've got teams like the packers last year where they had everything wrapped up, and their starters got too much rest. With the bye, they went almost a month between real football games. With the WCs, you're seeing teams get hot at the right time (much like in baseball). T I agree with you, but the odd thing is that is how it's been for I believe about 20 years now, and for some reason the WC is having more success lately. Marv would rest all the starters in the final game, so the Bills would have two weeks off basically, and they then won anyway.
Ramius Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Also, in the MLB regular season, you always hear teams talking about winning as many series as they can....they don't say "I hope we can beat the Braves once"...they want to win the series. The idea of a one game sudden death is just too foreign to the game and it potentially gives one player - a dominant pitcher - way too much influence. A one game sudden death is far from foreign to the game. MLB is littered with 1 game playoff scenarios for teams that tied for the division lead, etc.
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2012 Author Posted October 7, 2012 A one game sudden death is far from foreign to the game. MLB is littered with 1 game playoff scenarios for teams that tied for the division lead, etc. Excellent point. All the current format does is assume that the top 2 second place teams are equal, which is fine with me.
Ramius Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Excellent point. All the current format does is assume that the top 2 second place teams are equal, which is fine with me. Yup, and winning your division has become that much more important again. However, have i ever mentioned how much i hate the stupid "first 2 at the low seed" format? Ridiculous. Put the higher seed in a hole for what reason?
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2012 Author Posted October 7, 2012 Yup, and winning your division has become that much more important again. However, have i ever mentioned how much i hate the stupid "first 2 at the low seed" format? Ridiculous. Put the higher seed in a hole for what reason? That new rule is so stupid, even the NHL wouldn't do it. Absolutely no reason to not play a 2-2-1 series.
ajzepp Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 A one game sudden death is far from foreign to the game. MLB is littered with 1 game playoff scenarios for teams that tied for the division lead, etc. That happens out of necessity, it's not structured that way. That's like saying the NFL is littered with overtime scenarios for teams that are tied at the end of the fourth quarter. The MLB doesn't structure anything in one game formats, and I dont feel they should start now. Excellent point. All the current format does is assume that the top 2 second place teams are equal, which is fine with me. I don't see how it does that at all. All it does is make it far more likely that a team with an ace pitcher will take out a team that would otherwise beat them in a "best of".
Ramius Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 I don't see how it does that at all. All it does is make it far more likely that a team with an ace pitcher will take out a team that would otherwise beat them in a "best of". But it doesn't. Chances are you're not going to get to set your rotation and purposely schedule your ace for the 1 game playoff. You're going to have whoever was next inline after the game 162 pitcher. And if you do, then you lose the ability to throw him twice in the 5 game ALDS, benefitting the division winner.
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2012 Author Posted October 7, 2012 That happens out of necessity, it's not structured that way. That's like saying the NFL is littered with overtime scenarios for teams that are tied at the end of the fourth quarter. The MLB doesn't structure anything in one game formats, and I dont feel they should start now. I don't see how it does that at all. All it does is make it far more likely that a team with an ace pitcher will take out a team that would otherwise beat them in a "best of". 'Ace pitchers' have nothing to do with it. It's simply a mechanism to ensure that second place teams don't get the same playoff standing as do the division champs who beat them over 162 games. And the only way to do that without forcing the more deserving division champs to wait around (which is almost always a disadvantage in baseball), is with the one game playoff.
ajzepp Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 'Ace pitchers' have nothing to do with it. It's simply a mechanism to ensure that second place teams don't get the same playoff standing as do the division champs who beat them over 162 games. And the only way to do that without forcing the more deserving division champs to wait around (which is almost always a disadvantage in baseball), is with the one game playoff. If they had the very same common opponents over that 162 game schedule, I could better understand the hard line position that the diviison champ was the better team. Especially with inter-league play, though, that's not going to happen. There is already an advantage inherent in the regular season schedule, and somehow that has to even out.
Rob's House Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 After taking some time to think about it and really reflect, I've come to realize that I still hate the new playoff format. A lot.
The Poojer Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Pretty sure mlb did away with glass bottles years ago and went with plastic Some of them were throwing glass bottles directly at the umpire/players from what they said on the broadcast. I just don't like Atlanta fans in general.
ajzepp Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Pretty sure mlb did away with glass bottles years ago and went with plastic They were the little bottles that you buy alcohol in.
bbb Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 After taking some time to think about it and really reflect, I've come to realize that I still hate the new playoff format. A lot. How many regular season games are you normally tuned into - either TV, radio, following online, etc.?
Recommended Posts