[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You aren't paying attention. I think having tiebreakingr games is wrong when one of the teams has a better head-to-head record over the other. And I don't find those games exciting. I find them unnecessary and unfair.

Which means you are against the all the classic and dramatic tie-breaking games and series which have been played over MLB's history (fourteen so far).

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And I think that making a team play TWO back to back elimination games is total BS.

I've explained to you twice now that this statement, as it regards the tie scenario you yourself laid out, is wrong. There is only one game, between the two clubs tied for the second wild card qualifying position.

Go back and reread what I've posted. I'm certain everyone else gets how you are wrong in your statement on the scenario you set out, so other than pure obstinance, I see no reason for you to simply offer a mea culpa for misunderstanding what the rules call for.

Originally Posted by Afino

I don't think anyone wants a 2 month recode that 0.1% of users will ever use.

There is absolutely no evidence provided to verify either of those statements. They are nothing but assertions. I would think, as baseball fans—and consequently in favour of hard data and statistics—we would expect something far more substantive that mere assertion.

Originally Posted by Padreman

Ok if the head to head record is the same then yes they should have a playoff game against each other but if the head to head record favors one team then that's your tie breaking element right there

So, folks want the major leagues to act like the minor leagues? That's...interesting. What other elements of the minors should the majors emulate?


I find it astonishing that some folks in this thread—people who almost certainly would be classified as baseball traditionalists in terms of things like the wild card, expanded playoffs, interleague play, and the like—are wholly willing to throw out long-standing baseball tradition which calls for extra game(s) to be played in the event clubs are tied for the pennant at the scheduled end of the regular season. They are in favour of eliminating the fourteen dramatic and classic tie-breaking series/games that have held since 1946.

The Dodgers-Giants best-of-three battle for the 1951 NL pennant? Gone. Instead, the Dodgers would have simply been handed the pennant due to its 13-9 record against the Giants that year. The 1978 game between the Yankees and Red Sox for the AL East title? Gone. Instead, the Yankees would simply have been handed the division title due to its 8-7 record against the Red Sox. And so on.

I have a theory on why some here are taking that position. Call me a cynic if you wish—and be forewarned I'll not mince words here—but it's because they are simply taking the side of the devs over what doing what is proper according to the long-standing traditions of major league baseball.

Because the devs basically said, "it's too hard at the moment for us to do it right or make it flexible" (with all due respect to them, that strikes me as a cop-out, especially considering they've not seen the particular model I have in mind, to say nothing of what detailed systems others might propose), the sycophants have emerged to defend inaction and inaccuracy. It's the old "defend the devs!" knee-jerk mentality that one can see over and over in gaming as a whole. (It's present to some degree on pretty much any game's forum.)

It's sad to see, actually. I expected better of some of the folks 'round here than to exhibit such blatant sycophantic behaviour.