One-game MLB wildcard playoffs: Yea or Nay?

Déjà Bru · 10-05-2012, 09:59 PM

Well it's kind of obvious, given the Atlanta Braves (94 wins) - St. Louis Cardinals (88 wins) game being discussed in another thread right now, but we need to discuss the idea of one-game MLB wildcard playoffs separately from what happened in that game. Say that game was played out without controversy, and St. Louis still won. Is it fair that they go on in the playoffs instead of Atlanta, on the basis of one ballgame?

Here's what I just read in an article, about why this was supposed to be a good idea:

Quote:

Major League Baseball hoped to get more clubs involved in postseason races, and the Angels, Dodgers, Brewers, Rays and Pirates were among those that enjoyed the chase this year.

There also was some sentiment that wild-card teams were getting it too easy and winning the World Series too often, as the Cardinals did last season. By adding an extra playoff club in each league and then forcing it to play in a winner-take-all game, it could make the path tougher.

That's fine, but a team that won only 88 games just bounced a 94-game winner. In one game.

Here's another quote from that article (it was published this morning, before the game, of course):

Quote:

"I think for teams like Atlanta — who had an unbelievable year, and it could be ruined by one game — it's probably unfair," Washington first baseman Adam LaRoche said.

"Now, in one game, any given day, a college team could beat a big league team. It's just the way the ball rolls. So I don't know how much one game proves as far as who deserves to move on," he said. "You almost have to do it two out of three. But then you get other teams sitting around for a week. So I don't know the right way to do it."

I think I agree with LaRoche. Especially after the fact, when he seems clairvoyant.

Heh, depend on Ozzie to come up with a seemingly zany solution, but one that makes sense the more you think about it:

Quote:

"I wish it was a three-game playoff," Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen said. "I've clinched and I wait for you and you just got here, and one game, anybody can win, and I'm done? I wish they would cut the season to 159 and play three games. A lot of people would love that."

The Game · 10-05-2012, 10:25 PM

I like what Ozzie said...or shorten the season to 154-158 games and do the same thing.

Jason · 10-05-2012, 10:39 PM

I could go for a three game series.

Mecza · 10-05-2012, 10:56 PM

This will never happen, BUT if it does, then realistically:

156 game schedule
Two team contraction
No divisions (14/14)
no interleague
no all-star game, but announce first team players which is basically an offical way of saying you are an all-star without actually playing the game
balanced schedule (play four 3-game series against everyone in league)
4 teams from each league make post-season, 7 game series the whole way
1 seed gets home field for all seven games, world series is split 4 home/3 away depending on what league won the series in the previous year
The key is that the post-season should not bleed into november and that you can not dilute the play-offs with too many teams

oman19 · 10-06-2012, 12:07 AM

I love this one game playoff exactly the way it is. If you don't want your season to come down to one game...simple solution....win your division.

Previously I think the first round was to much of a crapshoot. The wildcard would line up in a best of 5 with the top seed and have no disadvantage aside of the one game extra home game the higher seed has.

Now you have to blow your best pitcher most likely to advance to the "second round" while the higher seed gets to set their rotation as they like.

If it was a 3 game series the teams now in the play in would be sitting around to long which would hurt them in the long run. For once I think baseballl has it just right.

kenyan_cheena · 10-06-2012, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oman19

I love this one game playoff exactly the way it is. If you don't want your season to come down to one game...simple solution....win your division.

Yep, and make sure you don't make three killer errors in that one game, also.

Jason Moyer · 10-06-2012, 12:57 AM

I'm more uncomfortable with teams making the playoffs without winning their division than I am with a wild card team going home after one game.

sjam613 · 10-06-2012, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oman19

I love this one game playoff exactly the way it is. If you don't want your season to come down to one game...simple solution....win your division.

This. I loved that winning the division was important again. Teams in the past didn't care about the division as long as they were in.

jaxmagicman · 10-06-2012, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oman19

I love this one game playoff exactly the way it is. If you don't want your season to come down to one game...simple solution....win your division.

Previously I think the first round was to much of a crapshoot. The wildcard would line up in a best of 5 with the top seed and have no disadvantage aside of the one game extra home game the higher seed has.

Now you have to blow your best pitcher most likely to advance to the "second round" while the higher seed gets to set their rotation as they like.

If it was a 3 game series the teams now in the play in would be sitting around too long which would hurt them in the long run. For once I think baseballl has it just right.

This.

Déjà Bru · 10-06-2012, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oman19

I love this one game playoff exactly the way it is. If you don't want your season to come down to one game...simple solution....win your division.

Previously I think the first round was to much of a crapshoot. The wildcard would line up in a best of 5 with the top seed and have no disadvantage aside of the one game extra home game the higher seed has.

Now you have to blow your best pitcher most likely to advance to the "second round" while the higher seed gets to set their rotation as they like.

If it was a 3 game series the teams now in the play in would be sitting around to long which would hurt them in the long run. For once I think baseballl has it just right.

Excellent post, particularly the bolded part. This arrangement puts more incentive back into winning the division as it should be, rather than just making it to the playoffs. Now, yeah, maybe the wildcard team doesn't win those five-game series as often, again as it should be. Well, OK then.

10-06-2012, 01:16 PM

I like it honestly. I always thought the Wildcard had it too easy. There should be a real benefit to winning your division and now, there is. If you do not want to be in a 1-game playoff, the solution is simple. Win your division.

Déjà Bru · 10-06-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avwjase

I like it honestly. I always thought the Wildcard had it too easy. There should be a real benefit to winning your division and now, there is. If you do not want to be in a 1-game playoff, the solution is simple. Win your division.

This is a significant statement, coming from a fan with your persuasion!

10-06-2012, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

This is a significant statement, coming from a fan with your persuasion!

Well, if my Cards did not want to play in a 1-game playoff last night they should have won some of their 1-run games this season. They had the highest run differential in baseball (or at least the NL, I think) yet they could not win 1-run games.

kq76 · 10-06-2012, 01:50 PM

I like the one game playoff, but I'd rather see a 3-game series. Make the second day a doubleheader (not my idea, but I like it) and I don't think you're making the other teams wait too long. And if there has to be a tie-break game, you could even make that game be the first game of another doubleheader the first day at the home wild card team's park. And this way you're still tiring out the best SPs of the wild card teams which is what's great about the current system.

RchW · 10-06-2012, 02:40 PM

The doubleheader idea is really good.

Marberi · 10-06-2012, 04:37 PM

Personally, I'm not too sure about this yet.

On the one hand, I agree 100% w/the sentiment that this places much more weight on winning your division. On the other hand, I also feel it's unfair that a team with 88 wins has just eliminated a 94 game winner in one single game.

IMO, the best solution would be the 3 game series. Division champs would have to wait for a few days, yes, but you still get that in the postseason when some team sweeps their opponent. And, as in those cases, this would give div. champs the chance to set up their starting rotation, get injured players back, etc. So I look at it as another advantage for them.

At the end of the day, the postseason has always been far from perfect anyways (even before the Wildcard, we saw many a div. champ with a weaker record beat a stronger team in the LCS or WS) and there'll always be those who don't like the format, no matter what it looks like. But IMO, it's just not fair to see your whole season go down the drain in one single game that is basically a crap shoot, just like Adam LaRoche said.

Le Grande Orange · 10-06-2012, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marberi

On the other hand, I also feel it's unfair that a team with 88 wins has just eliminated a 94 game winner in one single game.

The number of wins for each team is irrelevant because the teams' won-loss records cannot be directly compared to one another. The schedules and the number of times individual opponents were played are completely different for Atlanta and St. Louis, so they are not comparable. It would be fine to compare the records of two clubs from the same division since their schedules will be mostly identical in terms of the number of times various opponents were played.

Marberi · 10-06-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The number of wins for each team is irrelevant because the teams' won-loss records cannot be directly compared to one another…

Well, I believe this to be subjective and a matter of personal opinion, but I tend to agree with you, so that's not what I contend.

Unless MLB were to go back to the pre-1969, 2 league, non-divisional format, the system will never be perfect and you will inevitably have teams with less than 90 wins or non-div. champs winning the WS. All I'm saying is that the one game playoff is not the ideal way to determine which team gets to advance in the postseason.

IMO, it's not fair that, just because you play in the same division as the team with the best record in your league (a la Braves this year), you have to face this do-or-die scenario. If your record is good enough to win any of the other 2 divisions in your league, you should be given a much fairer chance to move on.

10-05-2012, 10:56 PM	#4
Mecza Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 268	This will never happen, BUT if it does, then realistically: 156 game schedule Two team contraction No divisions (14/14) no interleague no all-star game, but announce first team players which is basically an offical way of saying you are an all-star without actually playing the game balanced schedule (play four 3-game series against everyone in league) 4 teams from each league make post-season, 7 game series the whole way 1 seed gets home field for all seven games, world series is split 4 home/3 away depending on what league won the series in the previous year The key is that the post-season should not bleed into november and that you can not dilute the play-offs with too many teams

10-06-2012, 12:07 AM	#5
oman19 All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Metro Detroit Area Posts: 1,343	I love this one game playoff exactly the way it is. If you don't want your season to come down to one game...simple solution....win your division. Previously I think the first round was to much of a crapshoot. The wildcard would line up in a best of 5 with the top seed and have no disadvantage aside of the one game extra home game the higher seed has. Now you have to blow your best pitcher most likely to advance to the "second round" while the higher seed gets to set their rotation as they like. If it was a 3 game series the teams now in the play in would be sitting around to long which would hurt them in the long run. For once I think baseballl has it just right. __________________ GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. My OOTP wishlist: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-wishlist.html

10-06-2012, 12:57 AM	#7
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,071	I'm more uncomfortable with teams making the playoffs without winning their division than I am with a wild card team going home after one game. __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

10-06-2012, 01:50 PM	#14
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 11,755	I like the one game playoff, but I'd rather see a 3-game series. Make the second day a doubleheader (not my idea, but I like it) and I don't think you're making the other teams wait too long. And if there has to be a tie-break game, you could even make that game be the first game of another doubleheader the first day at the home wild card team's park. And this way you're still tiring out the best SPs of the wild card teams which is what's great about the current system. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project)

10-06-2012, 02:40 PM	#15
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	The doubleheader idea is really good. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

10-05-2012, 10:25 PM	#2
The Game Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Inside The Game Posts: 30,937	I like what Ozzie said...or shorten the season to 154-158 games and do the same thing.

10-05-2012, 10:39 PM	#3
Jason Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,845	I could go for a three game series.

10-06-2012, 01:16 PM	#11
avwjase Guest Posts: n/a	I like it honestly. I always thought the Wildcard had it too easy. There should be a real benefit to winning your division and now, there is. If you do not want to be in a 1-game playoff, the solution is simple. Win your division.

10-06-2012, 04:37 PM	#16
Marberi All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Puebla, Mexico Posts: 562	Personally, I'm not too sure about this yet. On the one hand, I agree 100% w/the sentiment that this places much more weight on winning your division. On the other hand, I also feel it's unfair that a team with 88 wins has just eliminated a 94 game winner in one single game. IMO, the best solution would be the 3 game series. Division champs would have to wait for a few days, yes, but you still get that in the postseason when some team sweeps their opponent. And, as in those cases, this would give div. champs the chance to set up their starting rotation, get injured players back, etc. So I look at it as another advantage for them. At the end of the day, the postseason has always been far from perfect anyways (even before the Wildcard, we saw many a div. champ with a weaker record beat a stronger team in the LCS or WS) and there'll always be those who don't like the format, no matter what it looks like. But IMO, it's just not fair to see your whole season go down the drain in one single game that is basically a crap shoot, just like Adam LaRoche said.