I don't have a problem with the fact that the playoffs don't yield up the "best team."

Have you boys been paying attention to the 9th inning and beyond heroics this postseason. That's drama and that's fun.

If we keep getting to the dance...our time will come to win it. I've got a hunch that this Profar kid is going to be clutch...and I don't care if SABR can purportedly disprove such a notion.

Yes the drama has been great. (and a lot easier on my heart since it has no effect on the Rangers).

What I don't get is how you don't have a problem with the playoff field not being the best regular season teams. What the hell exactly is the point of playing 162 games if a team can lose more games than you and still make the playoffs (LOSE MORE GAMES THAN YOU IN A WEAKER DIVISION NO LESS) while you're at home riding the couch watching like a fan. Now, I'm not talking so much about the Rangers here because they still got a shot at the LDS as I am the Angels and Rays. Both teams had better records than the Tigers. Both teams no doubt play in tougher divisions than the AL Central. And yet the Tigers not only got in the postseason, not only didn't have to play the WC game even though their record was worse than both WC teams, but got to open their LDS at home. (Now I know that will change next season).

Honestly. I think they need to switch to the more NBA type format of seeding. Best record in the league is the No. 1, 2nd best No. 2, 3rd best No. 3. No. 4&5 are the WCs and the winner faces the No. 1 seed. If you win your division... GREAT but I think overall record should dictate playoff teams. Now say you have a tie for No. 2 and you don't want to have a game 163 to determine seeding (because you probably would end up with ties every year) you can use the division title as a tie breaker. If two teams have the same record but one actually won their division then yes they should get the higher seed. If both won or neither won then you can use their season series, etc.

People say oh this increases the focus on the regular season games and teams will play harder to win their division because no one wants to be the WC. Well I don't think anyone wants to be the team that has a higher winning percentage than the No. 3 seed in the postseason but is still cleaning out their lockers after game 162.

That doesn't even take into consideration this: The Angels played in a division where 75% of the teams were playoff contenders. Every AL West team had a higher winning percentage than 35% of the AL. The Rays a division where 60% of the teams were playoff contenders . As opposed to the Tigers who played in a division where only 40% of the teams were playoff contenders and included 3 of the bottom 4 AL teams. To break it down even more: the AL East had an average winning% of .518, the AL West: .542, all while the average winning% in the AL Central was: .468.

So the short of all that rambling and pointless math was that the Tigers won less games in the weakest division (by far) and in turn received the best playoff scenario in the American League all while teams that performed far greater than them got an early offseason.

While I do see the farce in playing 162 games only to see a team like the Tigers make it while the Angels and Rays start their offseason, I sure wouldn't be bitching if it was the Rangers sneaking in that way. I like the seeding idea, though. I guess I'm just going to have to learn how to root for the Rangers -- instead of hoping they dominate everyone all season, I'll just hope that they stick around long enough to stay in the hunt, and then get really hot in the middle of September. Apparently that's how championships are won.
And that said, I'm left rooting for the Tigers to win it all now. I was hoping for one of Cincinnatti, Washington, or Baltimore, but now the Tigers are the least offensive team to me of the 4 remaining. I hate the Cards for what happened last year (mostly because I personally know a lot of STL fans who were celebrating like they hadn't won 10 titles before, and all I wanted for the Rangers was to just experience that ONCE); I hate the Giants for 2010 (but I'm getting over that); and the Yanks... well, they're the Yanks. And they have Swisher.

I agree that it seems silly to not have a problem with the playoffs not including the best teams. Seems to me that the teams playing for the championship should be the best (most deserving) teams. The fact that Detroit got any over teams with better records is a bit of a joke. I don't think a team should get a chance to be crowned champion of the league or have to miss out on the playoffs merely because of some arbitrary thing like what division they play in.

On a side note, this playoffs, while exciting at times, has been exactly what I didn't want to see. In the wild cards, I wanted the Rangers (obviously) and Braves to win. Both lost. Then, at least there were still some cool teams to cheer for. Wanted Oakland, Baltimore, Washington, and Cincinnati to win. All lost. I suppose out of the remaining teams I would have to cheer for Detroit, even though they don't really deserve to be there. But really all these teams are just so blah for me. Decided I really had no interest in even watching anymore once the Nats were knocked out.

Not sure why all the hate for the Cards... they're the anti-Yanks. They add, maybe, one or two contracts a year, but mostly, bring on their youngsters.

They're fun to watch.

Rangers #1
Astros #2
Cards #3
Royals #4

Yeah... I'm a hard-luck fan... not at all a bandwagoner...