The whole one-game playoff concept rubs me the wrong way.

[Lt Melmo]

There was a complaint about this on the minorleagueball.com boards, and I realize that I agree. There are 162 games played in a season, and they're just gonna add a bonus game to determine whose season meant something and whose didn't? Given one game, any team can beat any team. Make it so that every team in MLB gets a one-game playoff and it wouldn't be a stretch, by any means, for Washington and Seattle and San Diego to get playoff spots. It's also set up so that whoever the winning team is gets barely any rest between playoff series.

There should be a string of set tiebreakers that exist well within the 162 games of the season. Each team's record against each other, record against the division, record against the league, run differential, etc. Makes no sense to add another game into the mix.

[YardBirds13]

There was a complaint about this on the minorleagueball.com boards, and I realize that I agree. There are 162 games played in a season, and they're just gonna add a bonus game to determine whose season meant something and whose didn't? Given one game, any team can beat any team. Make it so that every team in MLB gets a one-game playoff and it wouldn't be a stretch, by any means, for Washington and Seattle and San Diego to get playoff spots. It's also set up so that whoever the winning team is gets barely any rest between playoff series.

There should be a string of set tiebreakers that exist well within the 162 games of the season. Each team's record against each other, record against the division, record against the league, run differential, etc. Makes no sense to add another game into the mix.

Sure Seattle or Washington could win in any one game scenario. That's why they play 162 times a year.

However, after those 162, you weed out the crappy teams and put the good ones in the playoffs. Well, the Twins and White Sox played their 162 games and finished the same. I think, at that point, it makes all the sense in the world to play a one game playoff.

The thing that rubs me the wrong way (sorry to steal your phrase) is that the game is in Chicago. The Twins won the season series against the White Sox. That should determine who gets to play at home in the one game playoff.

[Spoonless]

vs. Central:
Chicago: 43-29
Minnesota: 43-29

vs. AL
Chicago: 76-68 .528
Minnesota: 74-70 .514

Run Differential:
Chicago: +81
Minnesota: +85

Minnesota vs. Chicago:
10-8

So, I guess you'd have to make a case for Minnesota deserving it more?

I know they use record against each other to determine seeding in the playoffs in the case of a tie regular season record when both teams are guaranteed a spot. i.e. If the Rays and BoSox ended up with the exact same record, the BoSox would be the Wild Card, as the Rays have the season series record.

I don't think a one-game playoff is any more ridiculous to a team's shot at the playoffs coming down to the last game of the season, as happened to the Mets.

[Spoonless]

The thing that rubs me the wrong way (sorry to steal your phrase) is that the game is in Chicago. The Twins won the season series against the White Sox. That should determine who gets to play at home in the one game playoff.

I agree with this.

[YardBirds13]

Who is everybody rooting for tonight?


I'm fully behind the Twins.

And then I'm fully behind whoever wins the Rays/Twins series to beat the Angels/Red Sox.

[ledzepp8]

Sure Seattle or Washington could win in any one game scenario. That's why they play 162 times a year.

However, after those 162, you weed out the crappy teams and put the good ones in the playoffs. Well, the Twins and White Sox played their 162 games and finished the same. I think, at that point, it makes all the sense in the world to play a one game playoff.

The thing that rubs me the wrong way (sorry to steal your phrase) is that the game is in Chicago. The Twins won the season series against the White Sox. That should determine who gets to play at home in the one game playoff.

I think the point was that a 1 game playoff isn't really fair. What does 1 extra game determine?

[YardBirds13]

I think the point was that a 1 game playoff isn't really fair. What does 1 extra game determine?

I mean I get his point, I just think that they had 162 games to determine who the best team in that division was. They turned to have the exact same record.

What other way is there to determine the champ? Record against each other, to me, should determine home field, but other than that, you have to let them play to determine the winner.

If that is your mindset, than what is 5 games that they play the division series in? What's 7 for the LCS or World Series?

I fully expect Drungo to come on here with his Anti-Playoff Rant :D. But if you think the playoffs are ok, why not a playoff game to determine who gets in?

[davearm]

I like playing the extra game rather than using tiebreakers. If 162 isn't enough to determine the winner, then play 163.

Now if you wanted to determine the home team using tiebreakers instead of a coinflip, I could get behind that.

[whatdoiget000]

I love the tiebreaker game. The San Diego/Colorado game last year was one of the best games I've ever watched. I'm behind the Twins but seeing Griffey in the postseason wouldn't be too shabby either.

[YardBirds13]

I love the tiebreaker game. The San Diego/Colorado game last year was one of the best games I've ever watched. I'm behind the Twins but seeing Griffey in the postseason wouldn't be too shabby either.

Hmm. I hadn't thought about that.

Nahh, can't do it, I hate AJ Pierzynski, and when it comes down to it I usually root for the smaller market teams.

Also, that San Diego/Colorado game last year was awesome, youre right about that.

[YardBirds13]

By the way...do you guys know the last team that Griffey played in the playoffs?



That would be the Baltimore Orioles, in 1997.

Think about that. Wow.

[Why Not?]

Great game tonight. I think the tiebreaker game is a great thing. It's been the scene of some of the great moments in baseball history.

[Migrant Redbird]

There was a complaint about this on the minorleagueball.com boards, and I realize that I agree. There are 162 games played in a season, and they're just gonna add a bonus game to determine whose season meant something and whose didn't? Given one game, any team can beat any team. Make it so that every team in MLB gets a one-game playoff and it wouldn't be a stretch, by any means, for Washington and Seattle and San Diego to get playoff spots. It's also set up so that whoever the winning team is gets barely any rest between playoff series.

There should be a string of set tiebreakers that exist well within the 162 games of the season. Each team's record against each other, record against the division, record against the league, run differential, etc. Makes no sense to add another game into the mix.

I couldn't disagree more. The teams had 162 games to sort things out and they ended up tied, so they play a "sudden death" game to break the tie. I think it's a lot better to settle it on the field than it is to use any other conceivable form of tie break.

All either team had to do to avoid needing to play the one game tie breaker was to win one more game during the regular season. Just one! They couldn't do that, so they get penalized by losing one of their off days before the ALDS begins to break the tie. They also use up a good starting pitcher and relief pitchers who could have been used in game 1 of the ALDS instead if they'd just won their division outright. That's perfectly fair to me.

[Sports Guy]

On some level it is wrong.

For me, the game should never be played....These teams play each other 18 times...That is a large enough sample size to say that the team that wins most of the games should win the division...Now, you can say what happens if the games are split evenly..then go to division record.

But even if you want to go against that, then the team that wins the most games against the other should get home field.

I mean, what are those 18 games worth? They have to count for something.

[longflyball]

I think the season series should break a tie. 18 games head to head is a better measure of what team is better than one extra game.

[whatdoiget000]

Plus the intensity is just turned up another notch...it's like Game 7 of the World Series.

[orayole]

Plus the intensity is just turned up another notch...it's like Game 7 of the World Series.

That's the only reason I'm not against the tie breaker game. Seeing 2 teams putting it all out, winner take all. The emotion is high.

[Mackus]

I'd much rather see a one-game playoff than do a tie-breaker.

[SVOF]

In 2005 the Yankees and Red Sox ended up with the same record. Why didn't they have a playoff game?

[davearm]

In 2005 the Yankees and Red Sox ended up with the same record. Why didn't they have a playoff game?
Because they were both in the playoffs already, the second team via the wildcard.

[Dracula]

Fair? Maybe not. Exciting to watch? Certainly

[davearm]

Fair? Maybe not. Exciting to watch? Certainly
Not sure what's unfair about having two tied teams play each other in a winner-moves-on scenario.

[O'sFanThruJune]

As a previous poster pointed out, either of these teams could have won one more measly game and avoided the 163rd game. They each had 74 chances to win just one more game that would have made the difference. In that respect it seems absolutely appropriate that one game should decide who goes to the playoffs. Although yesterday evening this game seemed disproportionately important, retrospect today allows us to see that it carried no more weight than a game played in April.

Also, I don't like the idea of using head-to-head records. Those games count just as much as the others, and don't necessarily tell you who the better team is. I'm sure there are several examples just this year of bad teams with winning records against playoff teams.

[Why Not?]

Not sure what's unfair about having two tied teams play each other in a winner-moves-on scenario.

Agreed. If the one-game playoff is unfair, a 5- or 7-game playoff series is only marginally more fair. Yet nobody is putting forth the idea of granting the championship to the team with the best record.

[Mackus]

Agreed. If the one-game playoff is unfair, a 5- or 7-game playoff series is only marginally more fair. Yet nobody is putting forth the idea of granting the championship to the team with the best record.Actually, Drungo said he would be in favor of that. Or at least give just as much importance to winning the regular season title as is given to winning the playoffs.

[DrungoHazewood]

I fully expect Drungo to come on here with his Anti-Playoff Rant :D. But if you think the playoffs are ok, why not a playoff game to determine who gets in?

I think a one-game playoff is fine. Is mis-named. It's not a playoff, it's a one-game extension of the season because two teams were tied after 162.

The only thing worse than deciding a champion by a few short series is deciding anything by points allowed in out-of-conference road games.

[Lt Melmo]

Alright, I'm not gonna pull an OldFan and act like my point still stands. You've all changed my mind.

[Why Not?]

Actually, Drungo said he would be in favor of that. Or at least give just as much importance to winning the regular season title as is given to winning the playoffs.

It works abroad. But we love our playoffs and they are way too big of a money-maker.