OT: Why a 1-game playoff?
by HuskerBob on Sep 30, 2008 2:53 PM EDT
57 comments
I don't get the whole 1-game playoff concept for baseball. It has a longer regular season than any other sport why do you need an extra game to determine the division winner? You play a 162-game schedule that is supposed to separate the best team in each division and then when you have a tie, you throw that entire 162 game season out the window and decide it on 1 lone game, with a homefield advantage decided by a coin flip. Now the winner of that game has little if any rest and is the road team for the first two games. Even worse, in a 3 way tie scenario, baseball would play multiple extra games. Has any team ever won a 1 game playoff to get in and then won the WS? I don't know.
Basketball and football play much shorter regular seasons and have perfectly acceptable tiebreaking scenarios. I don't understand why, when the Twins and White Sox end in a tie you don't award the Twins the Central title by virtue of their 10-8 regular edge head to head against the White Sox, or how about deciding by division record? Whatever tiebreaker everyone is happy with use it, but an extra game doesn't make sense to me.
0 recs |
57 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I agree
It also really puts these teams at a disadvantage with respect to setting rotations up.
by killa on Sep 30, 2008 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well they are the worst teams making the playoffs in the AL
If they want that advantage of not playing as many games, winning more games earlier would’ve earned that.
I do hate the 1-game playoff though. Though I disagree with the tie-breaker section, such as looking at stats, the best way to settle things is to play against one-another.
Personally I’d like to see 2 games played (instead of 1 game playoffs), and have it based on aggregate like they do on soccer.
by achengy on Sep 30, 2008 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The aggregate goals rule
is the bar none worst competitive format in any sport. It’s just an awful, awful rule.
It’s not actually two games. It’s one game, except that it’s twice as long and there’s a weird tiebreaker rule involved.
Baseball games are 9 innings, not 18 innings-with-strange-tiebreaker.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Away goals
Never wish for a sysyem that can bring the never ending evil away goals rule into conception in some form. NEVER!
by tdot mariner fan on Sep 30, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that's one disadvantage
you could play until the tie is over though.
The team with the last game would still have an advantage but I think it would be a little more fair.
by achengy on Sep 30, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I know
You could play an 8 game World Series and decide it on run differential! Of course you’d have to change the name to the Pythagorean Series.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2008 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would that mean...
that the total runs scored by Team A squared plus the total runs scored by Team B squared would equal the total runs in the series squared?
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Sep 30, 2008 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's mathematically impossible...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 1, 2008 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
1) because the playoff schedules are already set up.
2) That’s always been the rule
3) As fun as a multiple game playoff would be it would put those teams that played in it at a distinct disadvantage going forward.
4) As fun as a multiple game playoff would be it would push the World Series into the middle of November.
5) If the other teams had to wait around for a multi game playoff it would be unfair to the other teams who would have to sit around and wouldnt be playing ball, so it would also be unfair to the teams who didnt play…
by alskor on Sep 30, 2008 3:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
if the sox didn't have to play on monday, your concern about rest wouldn't matter.
if it even does. the winner of this gets to play thursday. not sure i’m concerned about fatigure, especially when the twins also had monday off.
at any rate, the coin flip thing seems kind of silly. that’s where head to head (and, if need be, other tiebreakers) should come into effect. but i see little reason to be concerned about a one game playoff – or even two games, like this basically was for the sox. plus, it’s a great game to watch, especially if you’re a fan. last night was great and i know from cub fans that the ’98 game was also great.
there’d probably be even more people pissed off if a tied team got in on a tiebreaker instead of a play-in game.
it's all about john danks.
by larry on Sep 30, 2008 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
as one additional note,
i’d probably be more amendable to tiebreakers, and not a 163rd game, being the decider if the teams actually played similar regular season schedules. but with these unbalanced schedules, i’m not sure that’s a fair way to do it, either. perhaps i’m showing my white sox bias here, but the white sox’ and twins’ played 26 games against non-mutual opponents. and the winning percentage of the teams the twins played is markedly worse than that of the sox’ opponents.
i think the bottom line is there isn’t going to be one rule that satisfies everyone. i think the play-in game probably garners the most support but who knows.
it's all about john danks.
by larry on Sep 30, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe because this is still the regular season?
You aren’t throwing the 162-game schedule out the window. You’re extending it by 1 because 162 wasn’t quite enough. I don’t see the problem here.
I’d much rather each playoff series was made a 9-game series so the teams that deserve to advance are more likely to do so.
by thejd44 on Sep 30, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
If teams are worried about 1 more game being unfair, then they should go ahead and wrap it up in the 162 prior games.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Sep 30, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFL
You think NFL should play an 18th week in case of a tie?
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Sep 30, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL has tiebreaker rules.....
The NFL has certain rules in place in case of a tie (i.e. division record, ect). Baseball has rules in place as well. Teams play an additional REGULAR season game. People need to remember that it is not a PLAYOFF game and that the stats the players accumulate go towards their season totals. Also, the NFL is not a fair comparison considering they only play 16 games compared to 162 for baseball. One extra NFL game would be approximately the equivalent of a 10 game playoff series. However, if the NFL or NHL had a similar situation I would have no problem playing a 1 game showdown to determine who goes on to the playoffs.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Sep 30, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm assuming you mean the NBA and NHL
The NHL has a pretty simple tiebreaker (most wins) which is intuitively logical, so I don’t really have a problem with it. I could see going to a playoff if the teams have the same number of wins though.
It’s unfeasible for the NFL, where the season is already really too long for the health of the players. Add any more games and you’ll start subtracting quality of play. If anything, they should be shortening the year (by cutting the preseason to 2 or 3 games).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want MLB to be like the NFL?
The NFL would play a one-game playoff if they could. But teams can only play one game a week because of the violent nature of the sport and it would likely push the Super Bowl into March if they had to move the playoffs back a week to break all the ties.
Before the advent of divisional play, the NL had a three-game playoff to break ties—The famous Bobby Thomson HR in 1951 was game 3 of that three-game tiebreaker. But to continue to have a best of three (which, let’s face it, isn’t a lot more representative than a one game tie-break) would force the divisional series back and screw up the whole system. So the NL adopted the AL’s one-game “playoff.” (Which isn’t technically a playoff. It’s an extra regular season game.)
I really don’t understand why you are arguing this point. You want to stop having exciting one-game, winner-take-all games just before the post-season starts and replace it with a mathematical tie-breaker formula?
by Josh77 on Sep 30, 2008 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also the probability of
teams being tied after 16 games are much more likely then having the exact same record after 162 games.
However, while i love the 1 game playoff (then can call it regular season, but its an extra game where the winner gets in.. thats a playoff game by definition). The fact is these teams have played each other 18 times (19 and 20 in some divisions) why shouldnt their HTH record over 18+ games be more important then 1 random game where one team has their best pitcher going and the other cant?
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on Oct 1, 2008 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not arguing anything (easy Josh, everything isn't an argument)
If you like the 1-game playoff, that’s fine by me. And I’m not suggesting a mathematical formula of any sort. Beat the other team head to head or common division foes and you are in. All I’m saying is, I’m not a Twins fan, but the Twins got zero credit for beating the White sox head to head this year and end up playing 1 road game to decide their season.
It just makes zero sense to me to play 162 games and then in the event of a tie, throw all that away for a coin flip and a 1-game playoff (not regular season, I don’t care what you do with the stats) that depletes both teams pitching staff and makes them travel around the country. Talk about lowering level of play, now the ChiSox take their dead ass tired team into the first round against a Rays team that clinched 2 weeks ago and is completely rested. Maybe it won’t affect them, but it sure seems unlikely.
If the NFL and NBA can have tiebreakers for significantly shorter seasons, why can’t MLB?
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
by HuskerBob on Oct 1, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Understood reasoning.
As I said above (or maybe below)… I like the one game tie breaker. But I think they should determine Home Field by season series. If that is a tie, then division record, or run differential in the season series or something. Let everything be decided on the field and not with the flip of a coin. I don’t like using stats as tie breakers because it then takes it out of the players hands in a way.
And as someone else said, the reason the NFL has to use tie-breakers is because of the grueling nature of the sport, it would set everything back a week. Could you imagine that if at the end of December, they all of a sudden have to move the Superbowl back a week because two teams need to play a tie-breaker? And I don’t see how the White Sox would be any more tired than usual. They were home to finish the season against Cleveland, then Detroit came to town for the make-up game, then the Twins came to town for the tie breaker game. They haven’t travelled in almost a week (and their last away series was only in Minnesota… not a long plane trip). They are as rested for Game 1 against Tampa Bay as they would be for any game during the season. Five straight games at home, and then a day off.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Oct 1, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree with this
completely.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on Oct 1, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was to husker bobs statment
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on Oct 1, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Except I like the 7 game series. I like the history it has, and it is almost universal amongst American sports.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on Sep 30, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I agree with the 7 game series. Sure a longer series (i.e. 9 games) may be more fair, but where do we draw the line. If 9 games series shows a more deserving victor then a 7 games series, then wouldn’t an 11 game series show a more deserving victor then a 9 games series. Leave it at 7 because as they say “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Sep 30, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yah, give it to the Twins
As a Twins fan I’d love for the season series to be the tiebreaker however I would be pissed if it were the other way around. I do however think they should quit the stupid coin flips and go with season series gets homefield advantage.
Also as far as pitching goes the Twins will be ready to go if they can pull off a win. Liriano would be set to pitch on normal rest Thursday with Baker to follow. Slowey will also be available for either of those games if his injury doesn’t hamper him too much. Blackburn is the Twins 4th best starter in my opinion so him pitching today doesn’t hurt them for the rays series except for they might not get to that series.
The White Sox are kinda screwed though. They can either continue to pitch Beurhle on short rest or start over with Vasquez. Both Floyd and Danks will be unavailable because of the yesterdays and todays game.
Hopefully the White Sox won’t have to worry about their pitching rotation until 2009 after tonight.
Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?
by halfchest on Sep 30, 2008 3:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hello halfchest,
I too think that the team with the better head-to-head matchup should get the home-field advantage, not just leave it up to a coin flip. Of course, if the Twins and White Sox had finished up 9-9 instead of 10-8 Twins, then that too would have caused a problem for that scenario. Perhaps MLB could make sure that each division opponent plays an odd number of games (17 or 19) and maybe have more 2- or 4-game series with out-of-division opponents. That’s probably not a perfect solution, but it’s an idea to perhaps work on.
Speaking of the coin flip, supposedly, the White Sox were the ones to call “heads” and it came up “heads,” giving them home field for the 1-game playoff. Were the White Sox the only ones who were allowed to call out their preferred choice of heads or tails, and if so, why did they get to call it and not the Twins? Just curious.
Just my 2 cents.
Take care and have a great day!
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Oct 1, 2008 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally I’d like to see a one game playoff between the top two wildcard teams. Alot of times the wildcard team are the ones that got hot at the end of the year (see the Rockies from last season). A one game playoff would screw up their rotations and sort of be a penalty for not winning your division.
by edsachs1 on Sep 30, 2008 4:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The problem is
thinking of it as a “playoff”.
Its purpose isn’t as a “playoff” game, it is as another regular season game basically.
Would anyone object to one team beating another for the division by a 1 game margin on a 162 game sced?
by nms on Sep 30, 2008 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
???
What the hell else would you do? Postpone the playoffs a week? Because as much as the Fenway faithful would likely turn out, I doubt the Sox would much like playing a World Series in the snow. Or the Twins in their open air stadium that’s opening next season.
by Fanon on Sep 30, 2008 6:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My 2 cents
I like the 1 game playoff. It was tied after 162 game season, and they had an even record within their own division. If a team wants to make the playoffs and will become the worst team going in, then they obviously deserve this disadvantage. Without one game playoffs you dont get a game like this one between Twins and ChiSox, or Rockies vs. Padres last year, or 1978 BoSox vs. Yanks. It makes for enjoyable baseball, the only time other then the final game of a series where all hands are on deck.
by MartyMcFly on Oct 1, 2008 12:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
after 162 games...
the twins led the season series between the teams 10-8….when two 9-7 football teams have the same divisional records, they go to another tiebreaker….the logical next tiebreaker would be head-to-head….
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Oct 1, 2008 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
This is my feeling to, i think the 1 game playoff is silly, it should be based on the the 18 games which is a much more representative reason for advancing then 1 game.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on Oct 1, 2008 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also...
all hands on deck? the twins started their #3-4 at best starter….the white sox started their #4 starter….all hands on deck would mean liriano vs. buehrle or vazquez….
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Oct 1, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol. yeah. the sox started their #4 starter. good one.
the sox out-talled their opponent.
by larry on Oct 1, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
umm
Danks is their ace this year…. at least IMO.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on Oct 1, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello jbluestone,
You could make a solid argument for Danks, but I think you could make an equally strong or even stronger argument for Gavin Floyd. Certainly both were more consistent than Buerhle and Vazquez, along with the #5 spot (Richard, etc.)
Just my 2 cents.
Take care and have a great day!
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Oct 1, 2008 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could argue that, yes
but you would be flat-out wrong. John Danks has a tRA+ of 125. Gavin Floyd has a tRA+ of 99. Translation: Danks was really good this year, and Floyd was a sack o’ luck.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 1, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this...
is factually correct….danks certainly had a more realistically repeatable season than did floyd, but he’s still not the ace on that team….
who you view as the best pitcher of the team is not necessarily the ace….the twins considered brad radke their ace a few years with johan santana behind him….the tigers considered kenny rogers their ace even with justin verlander blowing up like he did….
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Oct 1, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, Barry Zito is the Giants' ace?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 2, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nope
an ace takes the ball and leads your team over and over to 7 inning starts that are quality…..no doubt that his stats were nice….but he had the fourth most innings on his own team….and only buehrle had more starts than him….so it’s not like he didn’t have the opportunity to be that guy…..and i’d say the team would agree with that if you look at how they set up their rotation throughout the last couple months….
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Oct 1, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
him having the fourth most innings on his own team and how they set up their rotation the last couple months couldn't have anything to do with him being 23 and the sox wanting to protect him, could it.
i’d suggest sticking with braves analysis. you obviously don’t follow the sox.
the sox out-talled their opponent.
by larry on Oct 2, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yikes
simma downa….
he’s 23, yes, but this year, he wouldn’t be considered the ace….the twins set up their rotation the last couple months to get liriano at the head of the rotation…likewise the giants with lincecum, both young starters as well….
and i don’t follow the sox other than through box scores, but i do follow them daily in that manner and through what information i can read through espn/sports weekly/mlb.com/etc.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Oct 2, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
by your definition, there is, what, one ace in all of baseball?
arguing about “ace” is rather silly, of course. by almost every statistical measure, danks was the top white sox pitcher. whether that makes him an ace or not seems rather peripheral. he certainly was not their #4.
the twins certainly were not setting up their rotation for liriano. if they were, i’d imagine they would do things like skip other pitchers whenever they had the chance in order to keep him on four days rest, no? or perhaps they would have sent him out there on three days rest on tuesday to face a john danks who was doing the same? they were doing basically the same thing as the sox were w/r/t to danks, only they determined to continue protecting him on the 163rd day. and it’s additionally odd that you criticize danks for not pitching enough innings and yet your boy liriano averaged less innings per start – and i even threw out his april starts to make it fair.
as for lincecum, well, i’ll leave to others the propriety of a non-contending team doing that to a young pitcher, if indeed that’s what they did (i don’t follow the NL closely enough to comment).
the sox out-talled their opponent.
by larry on Oct 2, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as someone who was at the game tonight
It was an awesome game and totally worth it. Granted, I agree with people that it’s not completely fair to decide a 162 game season on 1 game and it also put the twins at a disadvantage being on the road. But in terms of entertainment value, it’s pretty hard to beat. I say quit your belly aching and enjoy the show!
by joltinjoe on Oct 1, 2008 3:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
another point
after the end of the regular season, the twins were up by half a game….after the makeup game, they were tied, but the twins still held the season series edge….how did the chisox end up hosting this game? that was the biggest crock of all of it, if you ask me….
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Oct 1, 2008 10:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
rumor mill
early in the season, it was said that MLB was rather pushing for a Chicago/Chicago series as the white sox and cubs were both leading their respective leagues at the time in record….different podcasters at the all-star game talked about how every MLB official they interviewed raved about having an all-Chicago World Series….could MLB have been swinging the bat for the Pale Hose on this one?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Oct 1, 2008 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing
I hate worse than these awards are conspiracy theories like this
by slurve on Oct 1, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, it's a f***ing coin flip
Witnessed, public, etc etc.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 1, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't care
it was one of the best games of the year, too bad Twins lost.
by jahs34 on Oct 1, 2008 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
As for disadvantages
See: 2007 Rockies
Who's world is it? It's yours.
by BlackOps on Oct 1, 2008 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it’s not a playoff game. It’s the 163rd regular season game that counts in the standings. After the game, one team is ahead in the standings by one game with none more to play. That team goes to the playoffs.
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 2, 2008 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
Bingo!!!!!! People need to remember that this is NOT a playoff game.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Oct 2, 2008 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
