TWiB 9/25 - 10/1

[Slayer 0]

What was the widest margin between a WC team and the divison-winning team?

[CanadianChris 0]

Headache scenario for MLB: St. Louis needs to make up their game against San Francisco, THEN needs to play a one-game playoff against Houston, delaying the start of the NL playoffs.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

I disagree. The WC offers teams another ray of hope. Imagine some team (like the Braves teams of the past) win 105 games in a year, while the 2nd place team wins 95 games, a record that would have won either of the other two divisions. Why should that 2nd place team be shut out of the playoffs? Sure, sometimes it leads to a mediocre team getting into the payoffs, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

Edited to correct a stupid mistake.

[CanadianChris 0]

What was the widest margin between a WC team and the divison-winning team?

22 games between the Yankees and Red Sox in 1998. That was the year the Yankees won 114 games.

 

Second-largest margin: 14 games between the Mariners and A's in 2001. And the A's won 102 games in finishing second.

[Hawk 34 0]

I disagree. The WC offers teams another ray of hope. Imagine some team (like the Braves teams of the past) win 105 games in a year, while the 2nd place team wins 95 games, a record that would have won either of the other two divisions. Why should that 2nd place team be shut out of the playoffs? Sure, sometimes it leads to a mediocre team getting into the payoffs, but I think the negatives outweigh the positives.

 

The only "positive" is from the attendance standpoint, it allows to have another route to the playoffs and provides fans with that aforementioned "ray of hope" but having a mediocre team on a hot streak (which is usually required to get that spot) walk in and take the titles.

 

Look at the wild card teams that pulled off a WS win or those WC/WC games, ratings for those were pretty low. It shows that teams that don't appeal to the nation (granted, only 3-4 teams these days get national interest). So the wild-card offering sub-par teams from walking through the backdoor into the world series isn't helping the ratings game for MLB.

[Just John 0]

Everybody hates Houston...except me...and Conspiracy Victim.

 

The Astros are my favorite team. I just can never get into posting about them for an entire season. I am glad this board has a resident Astro shill, though.

 

I never understood why everyone hated Houston all of a sudden, anyway. I can see people hating Roger, but what do people have against the rest of the team? No exceptionally high payroll, no history of domination, I don't get it. I saw someone say the Crawford boxes... You know everyone can take advantage of those, and it's not like the entire team demanded them when the stadium was built.

 

Oh well, I'm glad the Astros at least decided to try at the end of the season. If they make it, talk about doing the bare minimum.

[CanadianChris 0]

Look at the wild card teams that pulled off a WS win or those WC/WC games, ratings for those were pretty low. It shows that teams that don't appeal to the nation (granted, only 3-4 teams these days get national interest). So the wild-card offering sub-par teams from walking through the backdoor into the world series isn't helping the ratings game for MLB.

That's entirely team-dependant. The Marlins won two WS and didn't draw flies. Neither did the Angels. But the Red Sox won the World Series as a wild card and drew crazy ratings.

[vivalaultra 0]

1.5 games back. The Reds are 2.5 games back. Hell, there might only need be a one-game playoff between the Reds and the 'Stros. Thanks Woody!

 

So, assuming this happens, is this worse than the 64 Phillies, taking into account the teams in the division that year against the ones this year?

[jwest27 0]

Hey, the Cardinals lost again. This is incredibly frustrating to watch. Especailly since they always seem to get close to pulling one out, and then just die. Ugh.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Headache scenario for MLB: St. Louis needs to make up their game against San Francisco, THEN needs to play a one-game playoff against Houston, delaying the start of the NL playoffs.

 

Or even worse for MLB, the Astros and Reds tie a half game behind St. Louis. The Cards play their makeup game against SF and lose. You end up with a 3 way tie between the Cards, Reds, and Astros meaning an even longer delay.

[naiwf 0]

I disagree. The WC offers teams another ray of hope. Imagine some team (like the Braves teams of the past) win 105 games in a year, while the 2nd place team wins 95 games, a record that would have won either of the other two divisions. Why should that 2nd place team be shut out of the playoffs? Sure, sometimes it leads to a mediocre team getting into the payoffs, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

Edited to correct a stupid mistake.

 

The problem is that a mediocre team like the Phillies that would have finished 15 or so games back in the division can still win the WS just because they were slightly better than a bunch of other horrendously mediocre teams. The NL as a whole this year has been the drizzling shits, and there are still 6 teams battling for 3 spots and NONE of those teams can even win 90 except for the Padres who would need to go 5-0 to get that far.

 

Yes, it would SUCK for either the Tigers or Twins not to make the playoffs this year with 95-100 wins, but not nearly as much as it sucks that the Phillies might be able to win the WS with 83-85 regular season wins having been all but out of the NL East race since late June (they were 12 out on June 26th). At a certain point the Phillies would have had to go on about a month and a half run of .700 baseball to make a serious push under the old system. With the WC in effect, they might be able to sneak in with a barely over .500 mark and that just makes the playoffs look bush league.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

So when an 8-8 or 9-7 NFL team or a 43-39 NBA team makes the playoffs the whole league looks like crap? MLB still has the lowest % of teams making the playoffs. To me, giving a 4th team the chance to make the postseason is a good thing.

[Just John 0]

You know, if an "undeserving" team makes the playoffs, it's still up to someone else to eliminate them. If they're so shitty, it shouldn't be a problem. I say if an 83-win team can beat three 90+ game winners, they deserve to win the Series. It's all about who shows up and plays the best ball when it counts. If the regular season top dogs can't get it done, fuck 'em. They deserve to lose to a team that played better.

 

Also, there's the whole problem of arbitrarily deciding how many wins makes you acceptable. Should we have just handed the WS to the Mariners when they won 116 games?

[Guest Felonies!]

It seems like most years, the wild card team is just as deserving as the other three division leaders. This is just a weird year.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I'm not a baseball purist but I know each team plays a lot more games than the NHL and NBA. In the NBA and NHL close to half the team make the playoffs but in baseball only a few teams make it. I think more teams should make the playoffs especially if they have winning records.

 

*Wishes the Angels had a shot at the playoffs*

[Guest Felonies!]

82 games, 16 teams

162 games, 8 teams

 

Makes sense to me.

[naiwf 0]

So when an 8-8 or 9-7 NFL team or a 43-39 NBA team makes the playoffs the whole league looks like crap? MLB still has the lowest % of teams making the playoffs. To me, giving a 4th team the chance to make the postseason is a good thing.

 

Yes, when an 8-8 NFL team or sub .500 NBA team makes the playoffs as a 6/8 seed respectively it makes the whole league look like crap. I don't care enough about hockey to worry about the NHL and their playoff structure.

[Guest Felonies!]

The NFL still hasn't recovered from the 8-8 Vikings and 8-8 Rams getting in. Big deal. This stuff happens.

[naiwf 0]

It happens, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing. That's all I'm saying. I'd feel the same way if the Phillies and Mets swapped records too. How proud can you be that your team made the postseason by barely winning half of their games (if that many)? The 39-43 2004 Knicks were an embarassment to the NBA.

[Guest Smues]

The NFL still hasn't recovered from the 8-8 Vikings and 8-8 Rams getting in. Big deal. This stuff happens.

 

Fucking Falcons and Eagles, that would have been an awesome NFC championship game.

[Guest]

Marlon Anderson is exactly what a post trade deadline acquisition should be. Without him, this team is already gone.

[Guest]

Dos.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Oakland is three outs away from clinching.

[Bored 0]

Actually is six outs but they're up 12-2 so it's all over. Division title #14, yay.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Boo. Choakland.

[Hawk 34 0]

Boo. Choakland.

 

Don't worry, they'll blow it in the playoffs

[Guest Felonies!]

The 39-43 2004 Knicks were an embarassment to the NBA.

Was it really? I'd say the 2005 and 2006 Knicks were bigger embarrassments to the NBA. Of all the things that are embarrassments to the NBA, the Knicks sneaking in with a losing record once is pretty low. Once upon a time in the NHL, 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs, and the Red Wings/Black Hawks/North Stars/Maple Leafs would just beat each other up and finish with shitty records but still make the playoffs. That wasn't an embarrassment to the NHL. In fact, everyone looks back fondly on the Black & Blue Norris Division.

[Vern Gagne 0]

1972 ALCS rematch

 

A's vs Tigers

[Bored 0]

That's what I hope for as I want no part of Johan Santana and the Metrodome.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Well in a way, I like seeing these new teams in the playoffs. Now I won't have watch bandwagon fans at bars cheering for the Angels during the postseason.