Teams under .500 in the playoffs

[NoOne]

Every tigers fan knows they lost to a 82-80 cardinals team in 2006 that had no business being in the playoffs with such a trash record, lol.

In real life this is due to greed. Larger playoff fields will inevitably allow in worse teams than before. It also reduces the chance the 'best' team actually wins the WS. With a small field the best team might have a 50/50 chance but just one more round can reduce that to 25-33% or less. (simple permutation)

mathematically, expanded playoff fields are stupid if you want the best to enter and the best to win more often, but they make a ton more money. Money is all that matters in such a decision in real life.

We have control in a video game. If you like it keep it, otherwise reduce how many get into the playoffs.

how you do wildcards vs division place will impact this too. HAving it based on division placement will allow lesser teams in vs at-large best record wildcards. If you don't mind that outcome, all is well, too. It's all personal preference.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

Every tigers fan knows they lost to a 82-80 cardinals team in 2006 that had no business being in the playoffs with such a trash record,

St. Louis had an 83-78 record that year and were Central Division champs. The Dodgers were the wild card with an 88-74 record. (San Diego won the NL West with an identical 88-74 record.) The Tigers were the AL wild card at 95-67.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

St. Louis had an 83-78 record that year and were Central Division champs. The Dodgers were the wild card with an 88-74 record. (San Diego won the NL West with an identical 88-74 record.) The Tigers were the AL wild card at 95-67.

Nice data. You omitted the conclusion statement. "Baseball is totally screwed up."

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Nice data. You omitted the conclusion statement. "Baseball is totally screwed up."

People have been saying that since the 19th century. It's not new.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

People have been saying that since the 19th century. It's not new.

Yeah, but 1973 was really the first seismic shot at the game after 80 years of rule stability.

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Real baseball, y'know. The OOTP results show just how screwed up it is.

I think baseball should kick the Rays and another team out and go with 4 divisions of 7, schedule weighted to in division, no interleague, and only division winners to post season.

MLB will never reduce teams.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Yeah, but 1973 was really the first seismic shot at the game after 80 years of rule stability.

The pitching mound being lowered five inches in 1968 wasn't a huge change? It had been fifteen inches for 67 years.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

MLB will never reduce teams.

Not voluntarily, at any rate.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

MLB will never reduce teams.

If they become financially untenable, of course they will.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

People have been saying that since the 19th century. It's not new.

You've proven they're finally right.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

MLB will never reduce teams.

Maybe they could make the Rays a road only team. I'd sure prefer that over spending money on a new ballpark for a team that has proven it won't draw.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Yeah, but 1973 was really the first seismic shot at the game after 80 years of rule stability.

They told us the DH would increase offense a lot and let us see stars play a few extra years. Yet it wasn't long before teams occasionally batted a DH ninth. Real star there!

What the DH actually did is let the team hire cripples who would hit only singles or home runs.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The pitching mound being lowered five inches in 1968 wasn't a huge change? It had been fifteen inches for 67 years.

No. The game was still played the same way, with the same number of players.

The game doesn't change when outfield fences are raised or lowered, or moved in or out, or if at a mile-high altitude, even if those changes have an impact on the pitching/batting balance of the game.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

They told us the DH would increase offense a lot and let us see stars play a few extra years. Yet it wasn't long before teams occasionally batted a DH ninth. Real star there!

The original stated purpose of the DH was to correct the attendance disparity between NL and AL teams. The American League thought that increasing offense would increase attendance. It was a rule change 100% made for financial reasons.

It was only later when AL fans would start defending it with, "nobody wants to see pitchers bat"

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

You've proven they're finally right.

Yes, continue to believe your dissatisfaction is novel and new rather than the continuation of a very old tradition.

"Old man yells at cloud" comes to mind here, although in this case it would be "Old Brad K yells at baseball."

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The pitching mound being lowered five inches in 1968 wasn't a huge change? It had been fifteen inches for 67 years.

The mound was lowered for the 1969 season.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Yes, continue to believe your dissatisfaction is novel and new rather than the continuation of a very old tradition.

"Old man yells at cloud" comes to mind here, although in this case it would be "Old Brad K yells at baseball."

You've proven bad teams get into the playoffs and sometimes win.

People being dissatisfied isn't new but unlike some of the past complaints this one is more than whining over trivialities.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

People being dissatisfied isn't new but unlike some of the past complaints this one is more than whining over trivialities.

Now objectively demonstrate using facts and evidence those other matters were trivial whereas your complaints are the only substantive ones. I'll wait.

The problem you're having is that you mistakenly think your preferences are objective facts to which everyone must agree. They're not and never will be. You can personally prefer whatever baseball period you like but stop acting as if your preferred period has been empirically demonstrated to be superior to all others. It's fallacious argumentation.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

St. Louis had an 83-78 record that year and were Central Division champs. The Dodgers were the wild card with an 88-74 record. (San Diego won the NL West with an identical 88-74 record.) The Tigers were the AL wild card at 95-67.

Okay, an 83 win team that had no business being in the playoffs, LOL

[Syd Thrift]

With all due respect, 1947 had a faaaaaar bigger effect on the league than anything that happened in 1973. It's not even close and as much as one can say "but rule changes", the rule I'm talking about was, while unwritten, just as much a part of the game as the DH became in 1973.

Okay, an 83 win team that had no business being in the playoffs, LOL

The 1973(?) Mets made the playoffs with 83 win and the 1987 Twins won the Series with 85...