What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
I've heard many say that the season is too long, and most of the divisional races are already clinched by one team. The races that are continuing are Wild Card races. Why not shorten the season by 3 games and have the two Wild Card contenders play head to head instead of something that was decided at the beginning of the season. I know their are some holes to this theory, but I am curious what those are and why this wouldn't work.
Every time you expand the playoffs, it makes the regular season less and less important. For instance in Basketball, you can be a fairly average team and win it all. In Basket ball, where over half the team make the playoffs, we've seen a 47 win team win it all.
Even in baseball, we've seen an 83 win cardinal team get hot and win it all.
Personally, I'd rather the long regular season mean more and the short playoffs, especially the one game playoff they are talking about, mean less.
Agree with djcahill. Making the playoffs in basketball is hardly noteworthy (half the teams make it, and they last for months). Making the playoffs in football is harder, but still easier than baseball (4 divisions of 4 teams, and 1 from each has to make it, plus 2 wild cards; the fact that a sub-.500 team made the playoffs last year in the NFL is a testament to this). In baseball it's a bigger deal. Even in the AL West, as we all know, making the playoffs was not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination.
You have to work really, really hard to make it in baseball. Just getting to the playoffs is a big deal. Making it easier for anyone to make the playoffs diminishes the accomplishment. That's why I'm firmly against the idea of this new wild-card playoff thing. I might prefer it if there weren't a wild card, but you can't really do without one with 3 divisions.
I totally agree with Andy on all points.
The wild card spot is a thorn in my side. When, not if, Houston comes to the AL West, it will balance all Divisions in MLB. Too bad we don't have 4 Divisions in each league, so that only the Division Champions go to the play-offs.
Actually, why not just do away with divisions entirely? At the end of the year, the 8 teams with the best records (out of all 30) make the playoffs. I know it's unlikely, but it would curb some of the crap about talent being concentrated all in one area (e.g. the east coast). Geography be damned.
Actually, Andy, that is being discussed. There will be talks of it in the CBA in a couple months. It will also go hand-in-hand with the elimination of the DH, as I have aluded to in the past. I know what I've heard in discussions and read, but I like your idea of the best 8 teams.
There are a lot of valid points being made concerning the wild card, possibly adding another next year and so on.Admittedly, being such an old school fogey, I was against the wild card idea from the beginning when it was first proposed. But in the 16 years of its existence the wild card has accomplished at least one positive thing: kept interest in the baseball season alive, whereas in years previous to 1995, races that were decided by the middle of September caused fans to shift their attentions to football or other sports.This year is a perfect example. In both leagues, there's not a hair-widths difference between the contenders for the wild card spot. This frantic rush to the finish line for Tampa, Boston, St. Louis and Atlanta (don't even mention the Angels, they're done) is fascinating.Now, having said all that, I do believe there's a limit. The regular season should mean someting and it still does.But I'm not sure if I would trust the owners to be sensible enough to keep from watering things down by adding another wild card, then another, then another....Whichever way it goes, I reserve the right a few years from now to say I was wrong back there in 2011.
We've had 162 game seasons for 50 years and some circles are opposed to making changes to the seasons length because of its potential impact on the record books. Not that steriods haven't already done that.
@ No. 42 -
I get what you're saying. I too was against it (Wild Card). But when Milwaukee and Baltimore came down to the final game back in the day to make it to the playoffs, it was Nationally televised and was just like a play-off game... and felt like it and they played like it. Caveat though is this; without the WC team, does the team with the best record get the time off while the other two duke it out in round one? I actually kind of like that incentive. Our Rangers have the 2nd most wins in the AL w/ 93, but can't catch the Yankees (97 & Detroit 92).
I just don't like the WC. If we had gotten it this year? Yes it generates revenue, blah, blah. I just don't like backing into the playoffs, but that is just me.
@Ricky: I guess what I saying, and I tend to flip-flop on this on a daily basis, is that as long as there's no more than one -- possibly two -- wild card teams then I'm OK with the setup.You just can't start making baseball playoffs like basketball and hockey, or as a better example, Texas High School football, where a 2-8 team will make the playoffs.I agree with you that it seems as though the wild card team kind of backs into a playoff spot, but interestingly enough, four wild card teams (97 Marlins, 02 Angels, 03 Marlins and 04 Red Sox) won the World Series.
I think MLB should adopt some sort of convoluted ranking system, consisting of computers and humans, to 'rank' the best teams at the end of the regular season. Then have the best teams play each other for the 'championship'. We could call it the Baseball Championship Series. Think of the interest MLB could generate with weekly rankings updates down the stretch.
@Adam: That's the best idea I've heard yet. Gold star!
Cahill, that is totally ridiculous. NO average team wins the NBA championship. Ever! Just because you cited 1 47 win team doesn't make it so. NBA teams under perform for a variety of reasons but mainly due to injury because 1 or 2 guys can make or break a team. However, the point is that no matter what the record an NBA team harbors there is no way that they can win the championship without having world class talent and usually like the Rockets have a perennial MVP candidate that carries the team.
Baseball, however, is a different story. While there certainly no frauds in baseball as the cliche' goes a team can get hot, eke into the playoffs and then win the World Series ala the Giants, Cardinals, and a whole host of others. All you really need to accomplish the feat is 1 or 2 dominant starters, 1 dominant closer and scrappy team that can get timely hits so they can win those 3-2 games. I think you've got you logic backwards. The best and most dominant team in baseball doesn't win all of the time. In fact, we can cite cases over and over where the big, bad team going into post season gets whacked pretty hard while in basketball the most talented team featuring the best player almost always wins.
The more teams you have in the playoffs, the higher quality the champion of those playoffs will be. Also the more revenue for the league. How often in Hockey or Basketball does the team with the best record win? How often is that the best team?
In order to dissolve regular season games in favor of more playoffs you first have to make it financially attractive to the teams losing revenue from a lesser schedule. That means full compensation throughout the leagues for those playoff games to the point they benefit from that format.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.