What's wrong with the 1-game wildcard setup

[DuWayne Steurer]

The complaint is that a 1 game play-in is not representative of a team's talent. The counter to that is that neither is a 3 game series, a 5 game series, or even a 7 game series. They're all such small sample sizes that ultimately, they don't give anything close to a real representation of what your true performance level is.

 

You can go through any team, any season, and find a 7 game winning streak or a 7 game losing streak, I'm sure. Or if not a 7 game losing streak, a 7 game streak where a team went 1-6 or 2-5. If you get cold at just the wrong time, you're sunk. Is that a representation of your talent level? No, it just is what it is.

[JohnBriggs12]

I would prefer watching the best teams play in the World Series. That's determined over 162 games, not 7 or 5 or 1.

 

The current format with World Series at the end of October with lesser than the best teams from that season doesn't hold my interest at all. I'm all football now and basketball is not far behind.

[jerichoholicninja]

In the NFL, a playoff game is equal to 6.25% of the regular season.

In the NBA and NHL, a 7 game series is equal to 8.5% of the regular season.

In MLB, a 5 game series equates to 3% of the regular season and a 7 game series is 4.3%.

 

The MLB playoffs are like using the first half or first 3 quarters of an NFL game to determine who advances. Going to a 3 game series is virtually pointless in an effort to try and determine the better team. For example, the Brewers were 10-9 and split their series 3-3 against the Pirates this year. But is there any doubt that Pittsburgh is the better team?

[pacopete4]

In the NFL, a playoff game is equal to 6.25% of the regular season.

In the NBA and NHL, a 7 game series is equal to 8.5% of the regular season.

In MLB, a 5 game series equates to 3% of the regular season and a 7 game series is 4.3%.

 

The MLB playoffs are like using the first half or first 3 quarters of an NFL game to determine who advances. Going to a 3 game series is virtually pointless in an effort to try and determine the better team. For example, the Brewers were 10-9 and split their series 3-3 against the Pirates this year. But is there any doubt that Pittsburgh is the better team?

 

 

So why not just play one game series for the entire playoffs? Seed it like the NCCA basketball tourney and let the games begin. I'm all for it! "October Madness"

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm coming around to the idea of the teams being decided the way they currently are, but the seeding determined by overall record.

 

I've gone back and forth, but after reading everyone's responses, this is where I am. I am a big believer in maintaining the integrity of divisions, it really helps create and continue rivalries. And division winners are still rewarded, someone could win 80 games and still be in the playoffs, as it should be.

 

But when you can have a WC team with 100 wins, and a division winner with 80, I just think it's best to seed them accordingly. Sure, they all the know the rules going in- but that has nothing to do with coming up with the best system.

 

As far as 1 game vs 3, I do think there could be time to condense all the playoff series and have plenty of time for two extra games. These guys are used to paying every day. Plus, as someone said, there's absolutely no reason to have 3 days off before playoffs start.

[trwi7]

The only thing I can think of that might work in regards to a one game playoff is two games.

 

The team with the better record gets two possible games at their home park. If the home team wins the first game, the "series" is over and they advance to the DS. If the road team wins, they play the second game with the winner advancing. A lot like a Regional Final in college baseball where one team goes all the way through as part of the winner's bracket and the team that advances through the loser's bracket has to beat the team in the winner's bracket twice to advance to the Super Regional.

 

That would give the team with the better record some option, like the Pirates tossing out Liriano in game 1 and saving Cole for a better matchup in game 2 if it got that far.

 

Of course that would leave the wildcard even more screwed in terms of the rotation because that could leave them without their top two pitchers until games 3 and 4.

 

Just spitballing but that would be one way to have the home wildcard team get an advantage (because it's basically 50-50 right now) in the wildcard.

[danzig6767]

I love the current system and hope it stays.

 

1. The 1 game playoff is exciting and interesting.

As just an overall baseball fan, i enjoy the one game and done format. If the Brewers won say 93-98 games though and were bounced after only one game, it would be a lot tougher to stomach than watching other wild card teams i don't care about see their playoff experience end after a single game.

 

Baseball is different than the other pro sports given the 162 game season. For hardcore fans who watch around 120 to 160 of those games, it's such an investment both in time and emotion. Then to see your team make the playoffs, it's gotta be an extra empty feeling for that season to end with only one playoff game.

 

That said, even though football is my favorite sport, there is nothing IMO quite like following a good baseball team that eventually makes the playoffs, especially when a division or wild card race is tight. Every night a game is on which as a fan you get invested in, regardless that it's a 162 game schedule vs the shorter schedule in other sports.

 

This is why i always hope baseball fans try to enjoy the journey as much as they should vs just looking at playoff results if their team exits early. All of those nights of exciting, tense, and free entertainment while following a good team over 162 games.

[A Swing and A Drive]

I've become a HUGE fan of the Wild Card set up as it is.

 

- First of all, adding the 2nd Wild Card has left fans of about 3-6 teams still interested going into September every year and even more before the trading deadline. This is good for MLB and baseball fans in general. Kudos to Bud for making this happen. Even teams on the fringe like the Tigers this year have to decide if they are in/out on July 31st which is exciting. Makes for more possible trade partners for rebuilding teams as well.

 

- Beginning the playoffs with a pair of one-and-done games is an excellent and exciting way to kick off the baseball playoffs every year. Make it a 3rd such game if it is preceeded by a tie-breaker game.

 

- For those suggesting that a 3 game Wild Card series is MORE fair and a better idea, I respectfully disagree. Have the first two games being a double header is really not a good idea. The majority of double headers are split between to two teams anyway, leaving it back to one deciding game anyway. I assume the team with the best record would host the double header? That means the team with the worst record would host game which decides the series. Also, having the Wild Card team burn through their top 3 starters (or at minimum top 2) in 2 days in order to advance to Division series. This puts the Wild Card winner at a HUGE disadvantage in the Division series, IMHO.

 

- Unlike the one Wild Card format, the current format rewards the Division Winners, which really does give advantage to the best team in each division for the 162 game season. If you don't want the chance of being bounced in the Wild Card game, you simply need to win your division.

 

- Wild Card winners like the Cubs and Astros, will have used up their ACE in the Wild Card game, meaning they would likely only be available to pitch once in the Divsion Series. Again this gives the team with the best record in the league (the Cards & Royals) a huge advantage in the Division Series. More reward for being the best teams in each league through the 162 game regular season.

 

-The Wild Card game has a Game 7 mentality. Game 7 (or deciding games) in any playoffs throughout sports are the most intense and best games to watch. As a fan were you not WAY more interested in watching the Wild Card games than watching games 1 or 2 of the Division Series? Personally, my favorite games of the Division Series are game 3, 4 or 5, because each of those games is an elimination game. Teams can do amazing things when their backs are against the wall.

[tmwiese55]

Well put, that's pretty much my take at this point. I started out hating the idea of it coming down to 1 game but have come around and much prefer it to the previous system.

[Brewser5]

It's the intensity of a Game 7 in a Game 1. This is great for the game of baseball and is great to watch.

 

Also whatever gives the Brewers a better chance in a tough division is OK with me.

[MrTPlush]

At the end of the day it is never going to be fair. It isn't fair the Brewers have to play the 97+ win Cardinals, Pirates, and Cubs for a large chunk of their season while other teams play mediocre teams all year. Unless we are going to set up the schedule where every single team plays all the same teams in all the same stadiums you are always going to have problems. You can't make this thing perfect...it just can't be done.

 

No matter what you do people will find a million problems with it. It just cant be perfect so just make it one game and move on. There is nothing wrong with the current setup.

[pacopete4]

At the end of the day it is never going to be fair. It isn't fair the Brewers have to play the 97+ win Cardinals, Pirates, and Cubs for a large chunk of their season while other teams play mediocre teams all year. Unless we are going to set up the schedule where every single team plays all the same teams in all the same stadiums you are always going to have problems. You can't make this thing perfect...it just can't be done.

 

No matter what you do people will find a million problems with it. It just cant be perfect so just make it one game and move on. There is nothing wrong with the current setup.

 

 

I guess the only fair way would be to have every play the same amount of games, home and away, against the same opponents.

 

I would be in favor of there just being a NL and AL and add in some wild cards. The division stuff really is fun but honestly, maybe in this route it becomes a more fair playing field for all.

[A Swing and A Drive]

Having divisions of 5 teams or less gives teams a better chance at winning a division and making the playoffs.

 

Remember when the Brewers where in the AL East?. There where seven teams in those divisions back then.

 

Don't think you'd want to go back to the days when your team is in 4-7 place in the division, no wild card and NO chance of making the playoffs after looking where you are in the standings on June 1st.

[tmwiese55]

In a situation with 8 team divisions though, the top 4 in a division could make the playoffs in certain years. This isn't like it used to be with only two teams making the playoffs on each side, like you were referencing.

 

The primary function of the divisions is to keep it somewhat regional to keep travel in check. If you play a completely balanced schedule the travel would even more grueling.

[1992casey]

The primary function of the divisions is to keep it somewhat regional to keep travel in check. If you play a completely balanced schedule the travel would even more grueling.

 

Fan interest is a also reason, although that may work out better in some divisions than others. But the idea is that at the end of September, a lot of teams will be playing within their divisions. And there's more opportunity for rivalries to develop.

 

We've been there and done that with balanced schedules. The American League had one for about two decades, beginning in the late 1970s. The main reason was that the AL West was composed primarily of expansion or relocated teams. The National League had a balanced schedule for several years, beginning with the 1993 expansion.

[tmwiese55]

I may have phrased wrong I guess, the reason the concept of divisions had originally come to be in all sports is the travel. This has created the fan interest that you speak off due to long standing rivalries.

[dlk9s]

What I don't like about the 1-game Wild Card playoff is that team's have a champagne celebration after clinching a playoff spot AND THEN after winning the single WC card. I mean COME ON ALREADY.

 

http://i.imgur.com/DI0qD.gif

[MrTPlush]

Why not make the year end in mid August and have series of 3, 3, 5, and 5. Little to no off days and wrap it up before football. Now that would be something. I mean sure if you are a stat guy like me your whole world would be flipped upside down and historical stats would suddenly be all messed up going forward, but at least baseball could finish their year strong. Instead of now where it nose dives when football starts up.

 

Baseball could have its own March Madness style quick tourney. If we have nearly no off days in the season why do we need them in the postseason? I think it would do some good if a team like the Cubs weren't able to use Arrieta two games in a series and instead were forced to use a fifth starter. Fifth starters are very important in the regular season, but aren't needed come October...that just isn't right.

[dlk9s]

I think the off days during the postseason are for television purposes.

[FVBrewerFan]

Why not make the year end in mid August and have series of 3, 3, 5, and 5.

 

You already know the answer. Money. No way would they even consider shrinking the season.

[MrTPlush]

Why not make the year end in mid August and have series of 3, 3, 5, and 5.

 

You already know the answer. Money. No way would they even consider shrinking the season.

 

I had it in there at one point...guess I ended up not mentioning that. But yes 100% would never happen because of lost money.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I like the one gamer. It's exciting, keeps more teams in it and gives a distinct advantage to the division winners. The worst thing baseball could do is turn the playoffs into what hockey and basketball have where the season is as meaningful as spring training. It's the same issue I have with college football...just win your division or conference otherwise who cares. If the Cubs or Pirates were so good, then beat the Cardinals a couple more times otherwise you get what you get.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Keep in mind that last year's World Series teams were both Wild Card teams, so while it does give division winners an advantage for the initial 5-game series, the Wild Card teams aren't at an insurmountable disadvantage, either.

 

I enjoy the 1-game playoff, so far it hasn't had any hiccups - my concern with the current format would be what things look like if and when any play-in games to determine the 2nd wild card team, or differentiate from a division winner/wild card team need to happen. And while the 1-game wild card round is exciting, I think it gives a bit too much advantage to teams with a unicorn starting pitcher to advance. If I had my druthers, I would prefer a scenario that includes 32 MLB teams, four 4-team divisions and 2 wild card teams in each league (similar to the NFL model).

 

Round 1 of the playoffs would be the two wild card teams playing the two division winners from each league with the worst records in a best of 5 game series with no offdays between ballparks once the series gets started. The top 2 division winners from each league would basically get a "bye", or about 1 week off from the end of the season until their first series. close to how much time they are currently getting, actually, so it wouldn't lead to a concern of rust - and it would allow players on that roster with nagging injuries or fatigue to rest.

 

Rounds 2-3 and the World Series would remain best of 7.

[FVBrewerFan]

I like the one gamer. It's exciting, keeps more teams in it and gives a distinct advantage to the division winners.

 

That's why I'm 50/50 on whether I like the current way they seed, or go according to record. I really believe in the importance of divisions. Yet, it just doesn't seem to make sense that a 81-81 or even a 79-83 team could theoretically win a division and be a #3 seed, while a WC team with a much better record has to play a one game playoff. But...I can live with that.

 

I think the one game playoff is another issue altogether. Yes, it does add excitement- no doubt. There just seems to be something "wrong" with it. Some of you have said no system will never be completely fair. That's true. Sample size will always be too small in any playoff series. But one game? That's about who has the better ace, and that's it. All I'm saying is there's plenty of time in the schedule for a 3 game WC series, so why not do it.

[joepepsi]

I like the one game playoff for the excitement it generates. I just think it should be between the two playoff teams with the worst record.