[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 06:39:35 -0700 (PDT)]
: On Oct 7, 5:31 am, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > [Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
: > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : On Oct 7, 4:53 am, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > [Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
: > : > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : >
: > : > : > The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
: > : > : > that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams. Baseball is
: > : > : > about the long haul. A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
: > : > : > as should be obvious by now.
: > : > :
: > : > : Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
: > : > : not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
: > : > : over it.
: > : >
: > : > The thing is, though, they're not. Both the Orioles and the Rangers, to
: > : > use two examples, had superior records to the Detroit Tigers this year.
: > :
: > : But they were inferior to the Yankees and A's. If you're not the best
: > : team in your division, you don't have much of a claim to being the
: > : best team in the world.
: > What does being the best team in the world have to do with it? For one
: > thing, by that logic, no one but the team with the best record should be
: > able to avoid a one-game playoff. For another thing, the post-season
: > will determine the winner of the tournament, not who was the best team
: > in the world. That's all they've ever determined; the best team doesn't
: > always win, and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
: If you want to replace "best team" with "champion" that might make
: what I'm trying to say clearer. I agree that it's OK for somebody
: other than the best team to win, it keeps things interesting and at
: least creates the illusion of competitive balance. But there should
: be some correlation between being the champion and being the best, for
: the championship to mean something more than just winning a postseason
: tournament. I find it a bit odd when a team is flying a World
: Champions banner, when there was another team that won ten more games
: than them in the same division.
I disagree, and think that there's a logical disconnect between "World
Champion" and "best team", as long as the Champion is determined by a
knockout tournament. For example, were the New York Giants the best
team in the National Football League last year? No, not by a long, long
way... but they got hot at the right time and won the tournament. Being
among the best gets you into the tournament, but after that it's a lot
about how things go in individual instances which have many more factors
determining their outcome than who is "best" (or "better").
: I don't think that no one but the best team should be able to avoid a
: one-game playoff, because you're then comparing teams playing very
: different schedules (of course, since the advent of interleague play,
: even teams in the same division have been playing different schedules,
: but they're at least partially fixing that problem next year). Plus,
: getting back to the entertainment factor, division races are a lot
: more fun when they mean something, and getting to avoid the play-in
: game is something.
I agree with regard to the divisional races, I just think that a one-
game playoff is too short. I think it will change very soon.
: > : The Tigers probably don't deserve to go in to
: > : the postseason on equal footing with the A's, but I'm not arguing that
: > : the new setup is perfect, just that it's an improvement over what we
: > : had before.
: > Agreed.
: > : > I'm not too worried about it, given the unbalanced scheduling, though.
: > : > If we ever had pseudobalanced scheduling (true balancing isn't possible,
: > : > of course), then I would just as soon we have no divisions and send the
: > : > top X teams to the playoffs.
: > : >
: > : > I still think that the WC round should be best of 3, though.
: > :
: > : If all we cared about was crowning the best team as champion, the way
: > : to go would be to have just one league with no divisions, play a
: > : balanced schedule, and crown the top team as champion, with no
: > : playoffs - like a European soccer league. But we also care about
: > : entertainment value, so we have divisions - which give us more races,
: > : more games between rivals, and an October full of playoff baseball.
: > : It also gives us mediocre teams sneaking into the postseason, and
: > : occasionally winning the whole thing. I think the tradeoff is worth
: > : it.
: > :
: > : What I like about the new format is that it increases both sides of
: > : the equation - more entertainment, and a greater likelihood that the
: > : best team will win the whole thing. Most changes increase one at the
: > : expense of the other.
: > Agreed, though I think that the 1-game playoff is likely to go away, as
: > it should, to the point that every post-season team gets a home game.
: It should take a few years for the second wild card to feel entitled
: to a home game, when, up until now, they wouldn't have gotten any
: game. I prefer it at one game, because I think that increases the
: advantage the top seed has over the wild card in the following round.
I've already seen plenty of pundits talking about how the one-game
format is too short, unfair, etc. I really think it'll go quickly.