Jump to content

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

Lt Melmo

By Lt Melmo
in MLB

Recommended Posts

Lt Melmo Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Lt Melmo

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YardBirds13 Major Leaguer Rising Star

YardBirds13

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spoonless All-Star

Spoonless

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ledzepp8 Hangout Grand Counsel

ledzepp8

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YardBirds13 Major Leaguer Rising Star

YardBirds13

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YardBirds13 Major Leaguer Rising Star

YardBirds13

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Migrant Redbird All-Star

Migrant Redbird

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...