How do you feel about 1-game WC?

[Frobby]

There should be another category: "I'm enthusiastically in favor of it."

This really puts a huge premium on winning the division to avoid having to survive a one-game playoff where anything can happen. It gives a big advantage to the division winners and I am all in favor of that. Also, the post-season is already too long (baseball should not be played on Halloween) and adding more than one game would just make it longer.

[Trackmaster]

Well, you got to be good enough to win your game then

And if the Orioles make the second WC I full expect them to lose. And then if the don't...It's ON.

It's not about "good enough," it's about who happens to win that day, and how the ball bounces. If better teams always beat teams that were worse than them, the best team would be 162-0, the worst team would be 0-162, etc. However, that's not the case. If you win 60% of your games, you're amazing. If you lose 40% of your games, you're awful. When you have .560 teams going up against .550 in a play-off game/series, the odds are almost dead even. Anybody who take the results of play-off series's seriously should send me their credit card number so that I can give them their inheritence from a Nigerian prince.

[weams]

It's not about "good enough," it's about who happens to win that day, and how the ball bounces. If better teams always beat teams that were worse than them, the best team would be 162-0, the worst team would be 0-162, etc. However, that's not the case. If you win 60% of your games, you're amazing. If you lose 40% of your games, you're awful. When you have .560 teams going up against .550 in a play-off game/series, the odds are almost dead even. Anybody who take the results of play-off series's seriously should send me their credit card number so that I can give them their inheritence from a Nigerian prince.

I politely disagree with all of this and agree with Frobby's post above completely. There is always the factor of luck. I believe that the highest ranked wild card will probably use their best pitcher in a one game shoot out. And that will put them at a disadvantage if they move forward. As it should. If the the Orioles are good enough to be a .550 or .560 team, I will accept the results of a one game playoff. Unless that is enough to will the East for them.

[Frobby]

It's not about "good enough," it's about who happens to win that day, and how the ball bounces. If better teams always beat teams that were worse than them, the best team would be 162-0, the worst team would be 0-162, etc. However, that's not the case. If you win 60% of your games, you're amazing. If you lose 40% of your games, you're awful. When you have .560 teams going up against .550 in a play-off game/series, the odds are almost dead even. Anybody who take the results of play-off series's seriously should send me their credit card number so that I can give them their inheritence from a Nigerian prince.

But that is OK with me, because the wild-card teams don't have the same right to be in the playoffs as the division winners, so if they are severely disadvantaged and subject to a bit of randomness, I really don't feel much sympathy. Of course, until I was 11 years old, only one team went to the post-season in a 10-team league, so that probably colors how I see things.

(Yes, I realize there could be a wild-card team with a better record than one or two of the division winners. Tough luck for them! Win your division, or win that wild-card game!)

[Hallas]

I like it. Winning your division should have some tangible benefits.

The issue with the divisions being imbalanced is another can of worms not related to the playoffs.

[nevadaO]

I'm not sure how I would feel from a "making the playoffs" standpoint. Does winning the 2nd wild card mean you are in the playoffs? Or does it mean you win the right to play one game to see who is in the playoffs?

[DrungoHazewood]

There should be another category: "I'm enthusiastically in favor of it."

This really puts a huge premium on winning the division to avoid having to survive a one-game playoff where anything can happen. It gives a big advantage to the division winners and I am all in favor of that. Also, the post-season is already too long (baseball should not be played on Halloween) and adding more than one game would just make it longer.

Yes, this. It incentivizes you to win the division, and it randomizes the playoffs even more, making it less likely that the best (read: richest teams bequeathed the biggest markets) team always wins.

[Flash- bd]

Yes, this. It incentivizes you to win the division, and it randomizes the playoffs even more, making it less likely that the best (read: richest teams bequeathed the biggest markets) team always wins.

Does it? It seems to me it makes it more likely that the richest teams bequeathed the biggest markets always win because it greatly benefits the division winners which are more likely to be just those teams...

[Hallas]

Speaking of this, I wonder what happens if the top 3 wild card teams are all tied for the same record. That would be one messy tiebreaker situation.

[orayole]

I'd rather eliminate divisions and go to 4 seedings.

Speaking of this, I wonder what happens if the top 3 wild card teams are all tied for the same record. That would be one messy tiebreaker situation.

http://www.bloguin.com/theoutsidecorner/2012-articles/july/the-second-wild-card-may-cause-more-problems.html

This explains what happens in tie scenarios. It could get really ugly.

[DrungoHazewood]

Does it? It seems to me it makes it more likely that the richest teams bequeathed the biggest markets always win because it greatly benefits the division winners which are more likely to be just those teams...

Two of the biggest markets are in the AL East, in Boston and New York. One of those teams, if they finish in the playoffs, will always be playing a one-game play in.

[srock]

There should be another category: "I'm enthusiastically in favor of it."

This really puts a huge premium on winning the division to avoid having to survive a one-game playoff where anything can happen. It gives a big advantage to the division winners and I am all in favor of that. Also, the post-season is already too long (baseball should not be played on Halloween) and adding more than one game would just make it longer.

I don't like a 1 game playoff format, but that's not the purpose of this game. It keeps more teams in the race and it gives a bigger advantage to winning the division.

Keeping more teams in the race means less meaningless games at the end of the year, which is good the sport as a whole.

[srock]

I'd rather eliminate divisions and go to 4 seedings.

http://www.bloguin.com/theoutsidecorner/2012-articles/july/the-second-wild-card-may-cause-more-problems.html

This explains what happens in tie scenarios. It could get really ugly.

The comparison is between last years system and this years.

Large scale overhaul isn't really the debate. For the record, I am in favor a large scale overhaul reducing or eliminating divisions. But since thats not the table right now, I like the 1 game tweak.

[Fired-Up]

I liked it when there was just the pennant series and the WS. It put a huge premium on winning the division. Much more so than the new system. In the old days it was win the division or go home. How about that for a premium?

Everything just gets devalued with more and more teams playing in the postseason. What's the significance of Josh Hamilton hitting any more homers? The Rangers all but have a spot locked up in the postseason. What was the point of Verlander winning 24 games last year? They ran away with a berth.

[DrungoHazewood]

I liked it when there was just the pennant series and the WS. It put a huge premium on winning the division. Much more so than the new system. In the old days it was win the division or go home. How about that for a premium?

Everything just gets devalued with more and more teams playing in the postseason. What's the significance of Josh Hamilton hitting any more homers? The Rangers all but have a spot locked up in the postseason. What was the point of Verlander winning 24 games last year? They ran away with a berth.

Or... it's indisputable that expanded playoffs means more money coming into the sport. More money coming into the sport means more kids all over the world pick baseball. So expanded playoffs lead to a bigger player pool and higher quality baseball.