[BigSlick]

rominer, on 19 November 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

but it still puts a premium on having that one ace pitcher, and having your rotation lined up just right, rather than on having a great, postseason-worthy season.

I wonder how likely it is that the 5th team would have to win game #162? If they did, then I doubt for example, that the Mariners would be able to throw Felix in a one game playoff.

Unfortunately you can't go back and look at previous years standings to see the difference between 5 & 6 because they weren't playing for anything at the time. I would assume though that just based on the number of teams that would still be alive going into he final weekend that the chances of the #5 team being able to throw their ace in game 163 aren't very high.

[rominer]

BigSlick, on 19 November 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

I wonder how likely it is that the 5th team would have to win game #162? If they did, then I doubt for example, that the Mariners would be able to throw Felix in a one game playoff.

Sure. And on the flip side, a team that's 3 games out in the division but 5 games up in the wild card – which has been pretty routine in the AL – might stop playing for the division and start lining things up for the wild card round while the mediocre teams fight it out for the second wild card spot.

But whether one team lines up its rotation or not, I think the shorter the series the less likely it is that the better team will win (although obviously the better team is still at an advantage). That's fine when it's a battle of not that greats in the NL...not so much when it's a 95 win AL East team against an 87 win team, while 91 wins is taking the Central or West.

If you're going to do this, then I think you have to address the competitive imbalance in baseball.

[BigSlick]

rominer, on 19 November 2010 - 02:54 PM, said:

If you're going to do this, then I think you have to address the competitive imbalance in baseball.

That will never be addressed.

I just realized when the wild card playoff will be expanded from 1 game to either 3 or 5. It'll happen the year after the Yankees lose a 1 game playoff for the first time.

[Kid T]

Edmund Dantes, on 19 November 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

You are not gaining some new or better aspect of the sport by doing it. You are only diluting the product. It's being done purely for greed.

Stupid.

Wasn't this what many of us said when the concept of the "wild card" was introduced?


I'm actually not against this at all since it creates even greater emphasis on winning the division. The wild card teams will most likely line up their #1 starters for the one-game playoff, which will make them less likely to be the as much of a factor in the ensuing series.

[acr]

What happens if #5 and #6 are tied in the standings? Will there be a one-game playoff to determine who gets to go to the three-game playoff to determine who gets to go to the five-game LDS?

This post has been edited by acr: 20 November 2010 - 04:25 PM

[Mike LansWho]

acr, on 20 November 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

What happens if #5 and #6 are tied in the standings? Will there be a one-game playoff to determine who gets to go to the three-game playoff to determine who gets to go to the five-game LDS?

I'm sure there would be a series of tie breakers.

[Cambridge]

I'm not a fan of this at all. One of the things that has made baseball great is that only the best teams get into the postseason, and that has already been watered down significantly. The ideal is the old-fashioned have the best record in the league and go directly to the World Series, but that obviously can't happen anymore now that there are 80 MLB teams and TV networks run the game [Okay, I exaggerated slightly on one of those two reasons].