|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 1, 2012 22:36:26 GMT -5
I don't like this; I was never a big fan of playoffs anyway, but this is really too much. I'd like to see the Nats make it, but not like this. How much more watering down before the season becomes nearly irrelevant?? It's like that in lots of sports already and it's appropriate for a sport like football, which has so few games per season, but baseball is different. There's a reason why it's called "the long season." These teams play 162 games over 6 months, through injuries, slumps, hot streaks, narrow wins & losses, etc. At the end, the aggregate result should yield the best teams OVER THE LONG HAUL. That's what it's all about, not who got hot for a few days or a week. Having said that, I have to admit that I have rarely (if ever) enjoyed baseball more, or found it more exciting, than the end of last season, beginning with the wild, final night of the season and extending through the Cardinals improbable World Series victory. Playoffs added to that and, if there's a sport for which playoffs are appropriate, it is baseball. I used to hate it when there were no wild cards, for example, and the Orioles would always miss the playoffs because the Yankees won a game or two more than they did. Despite having a better record than the other division winner, the Os still went home for the winter. But I think this second wild card slot(s) is really too much. It's all about a longer post-season and more TV revenue, not good baseball. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/post/with-baseballs-new-playoff-format-the-nationals-season-got-more-interesting/2012/03/01/gIQAlxkgjR_blog.html?hpid=z3 |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Mar 2, 2012 16:03:32 GMT -5
Playoffs? PLAYOFFS?? You're asking about PLAYOFFS??? Oops, sorry. Wrong sport! 
I'm with you on this one Allen. I'm firmly opposed to expanding the playoffs, and I'm firmly opposed to expansion of franchises.
I do understand that there are some benefits to this new system. I like the fact that the lowest ranked division winner does not have to face a wild card team in the first round; and that this expanded format does not add another series, but is a "play-in" game, much like the NCAA features for March Madness.
We die-hard old-school curmudgeonly baseball fans will always resist change, but ultimately will "accept" those changes because even with those changes, it is still the best of all the sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 2, 2012 17:37:14 GMT -5
That's what one of my late friends used to say. No matter how hard they try to screw up this game, they can't change its fundamental essence. It's still what Babe Ruth called it: the only real game in the world. I have to agree. As the long season plays out, none of this will matter to me and I'll get right back into the pennant race battle. For me, no matter how exciting the post season might be (and last year's was a doozy), it's still all about getting there. The pennant race is it for me, although the more playoffs they add, the less important it becomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Mar 4, 2012 15:17:18 GMT -5
Ditto on the extra wild card playoff teams. I'm not too hot on the best of five first round which puts too much emphasis on the starting pitchers and hot team having a short winning streak. In my opinion, let all the playoffs be seven game series. (Of course, since the Yankees frequently get bumped in five game series, you might think I'm biased.)
Personally, I treat the 162 season and the playoffs as totally seperate entities so I can enjoy each on its own merits.
Speaking of "Moneyball," I read today that Yankee GM Cashman wants to reduce the payroll to $190,000,000 by 2014. I love how they "Belt Tighten."
Can't wait til April!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 4, 2012 16:57:15 GMT -5
You have a point Lou. If we spend 6 months and 162 games getting to the "second season," why not make the playoffs more representative of a sport that is based on a long season by making them all best of 7? I also separate the two seasons and enjoy them separately for different reasons. As to payrolls, they do help, but don't guarantee a pennant, let alone a World Series win. Beane had a point and I like Bill James' approach to evaluating players. There's no pat formula and, in the end, a pennant and/or series win will depend on a lot of variables. And, so far at least, no one is paying bounties for pounding your opponents half to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valerie Hyatt Martin on Mar 7, 2012 23:27:33 GMT -5
I did the same thing when I first heard about the wildcard and then mixing up the leagues. I became the scouts and Art Howe in "Moneyball." Then I listened to the discussions about it on MLB radio and the idea of a Wildcard Wednesday, giving teams a better opportunity and adding excitement and interest in the outcome, seemed worth giving it a try. It doesn't change the game, and I think it gives teams who have pulled themselves together after a long season, a better chance.
I like Beane's approach. Statistics are fine, but how they are used can make a huge difference in the quality of play. For instance, if you have a guy who can steal, but he can't get on base, what's the point? I think there is a 'clutch' factor too, when it comes to important games...there are guys with all the right stats, but can't hit in an important game. Beane and his assistant matched stats with personal characteristics. Haven't you ever watched a game with the best of the best playing and for whatever reason, they look like the worst of the worst? Some guys might get in a groove and do better in all circumstances than stats say they should...although the opposite can happen, like a pitcher is looking stronger than normal and is left in, when everyone except the manager realized no matter how that pitcher appeared, he was only good for 95 pitches (Grady Little and Pedro Martinez).
Allen, I also have noticed the Yankees seem more like all the other teams...cutting payroll. Even though their bottom line is not the same as most teams, in their own way, they are budgeting instead of helping other teams cut their budget, but picking up huge contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 12, 2012 17:09:37 GMT -5
Gosh, I'm going to date myself, but I remember when there were eight teams in the AL and eight teams in the NL. Whoever won the most games in each league played a best-of-seven world series. That was it. Simple, clean. End of story. I love baseball as it was once upon a time. Back when there was no designated hitter rule, and pitchers routinely pitched entire games, unless pulled for a pinch hitter. I can live with the playoffs, but expanding it makes no sense, except for television advertisers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 12, 2012 19:06:41 GMT -5
That was a world away, Paul, but I remember growing up with baseball that way too - pretty much until 1969. Relief pitchers, at one time, were basically mop up men, not the superstar specialists they are today. If things were like that now, the Phils and Yanks would have gone straight to the WS, as many fans thought they deserved to. However, this era really has 2 seasons; the 162 games, and then the playoffs. As I've said elsewhere, this system suits a sport like football, where teams play so few games during the regular season. But, if baseball has gone this way, one has to wonder what those 162 games are for. Quite a few teams are eliminated, but then it's pretty much a free-for-all and all bets are off. What you did for those 162 games really doesn't matter. Somehow, that seems wrong to me.
On the other hand, without the current system, we would not have had the astronomically exciting final night of the season last year, or the grand playoffs, which culminated in the totally unexpected and unlikely Cardinals taking all the marbles. Granted, I had no dog in the fight, but I loved every minute of it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 14, 2012 18:24:05 GMT -5
Same here, Allen. And we would have missed the excitement of the seeing the Bosox come from a 3 games to 0 deficit to sweeping the final four games from the Yankees to make it the WS. What an amazing feat that was.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 14, 2012 20:44:30 GMT -5
Paul, I had forgotten the Sox 2004 miracle finale. Hollywood could not have made up a more exciting, or unlikely scenario. A friend of mine at work at the time was a New Englander and a lifelong Sox sufferer. I remember asking him if he thought the Series would be anticlimactic after that sweet sweep of the Yanks; he said it would not; he still thirsted for a Series win and would have felt awful if they did not go all the way. Happily, the Sox did not let him down! You're right -- without the current system, none of that would have happened. We might as well love it, because whether or not we do, we are stuck with this sytem! Nowthen -- PLAY BALL!!
|
|
