Explain the 1-game wildcard game to me

[Guido Sarducci]

I'm posting this as the Cubs are up 1-0 in the 1st, so no matter what happens this is not sour grapes.

I really don't understand having a one game playoff. Baseball has for decades essentially said that it takes a long series, up to 7 games, to determine who is the better of two teams. So how is a one game playoff logical?

 

[dgordo]

I think the idea was to make winning your division more important.

 

[MN.HAWK]

IMO it's almost as big of a joke as the All Star game deciding home field advantage. 162 game season to be decided on a game playoff, at least give it a 3 game if they insist on having expanded playoff teams.

 

[TJ8869]

I understand emphasizing the importance of winning your division, but it seems kind of unfair that a team with the second or third best record in the entire league is going to be done after tonight.

What makes even less sense to me is waiting so long to play the one-game playoff. Last year I suggested making the wildcard a 3-game series on Mon/Tue/Wed and starting the division series on Thursday. This would give division winners the luxury of setting up their rotation exactly the way they want it. The biggest objection to this seemed to be that it wouldn't be fair to make the division winners go 4 days without seeing live pitching. But here we are anyway, making the division winners go 4 days without seeing live pitching.

 

[Derekd3408]

2 more games for the MLB to make $$$$ off of. If you think there's any other reason you're wrong.

 

[TJ8869]

2 more games for the MLB to make $$$$ off of. If you think there's any other reason you're wrong.

The other reasoning is that having a second wildcard team keeps more teams in the race down the stretch, which means more meaningful games in September.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Seed the 5 teams according to record. Forget the traditional stuff. That went bye bye when they created 3 divisions and a wild card.

 

[HawkFantastic]

What is there to understand? Or better question, why try and understand it? Not everything can be understood. More teams isn't a good idea.

Since they added a playoff team, then I'm a big fan of the one and done. 3 games seems like a good idea, but you put a potential of 5+ days before the start of divisional series and that's not good on many fronts.

What I don't like- Astros playing in AL. YUCK!!!!!!!!

 

[Mountain Man Hawk]

I've heard that they did one game as opposed to a three-game series because they wanted to focus as much hype as possible on one game. As in they can make it more of a media circus if it's one game as opposed to three. No idea if that's really the case or not but my office's local baseball nut thought that's why. I also wonder if this might have been a way to placate the critics who were against expanding the playoff field from 4 teams to 5. Maybe those critics were arguing that adding another 3 game series was too much so they compromised by just adding the one additional game.

 

[Guido Sarducci]

I think the idea was to make winning your division more important.

Then leave it at 3 division champs and one wildcard and don't put a 5th team in as a wildcard. That emphasizes the division more than a second wildcard.

Cubs are winning big so I love it. But football has been the only sport to decide that a one game playoff means anything. But basketball, hockey and baseball all say it takes a whole series. But neither hockey nor basketball have a one game "wildcard".

Just seems illogical to me. 7 games to separate two playoff teams usually, but we'll call it one and done for this series. Doesn't say as much about who's a better team as much as who as a better Ace, and not necessarily much beyond that.

 

[LuteHawk]

The former MLB commissioner Bud Selig had the brainstorm
to heighten fan interest in August and September by having 10
teams make the playoffs. The new MLB commish will probably
adjust the wild card situation into a 3 game series. Also look
for MLB to go back to 154 game season instead of 162.

 

[ANYCHawk]

I'm posting this as the Cubs are up 1-0 in the 1st, so no matter what happens this is not sour grapes.

I really don't understand having a one game playoff. Baseball has for decades essentially said that it takes a long series, up to 7 games, to determine who is the better of two teams. So how is a one game playoff logical?

Makes winning the division more important, you can't let good teams sit for a week while the teams play a 3 game series, makes more money for owners, etc. etc.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Then leave it at 3 division champs and one wildcard and don't put a 5th team in as a wildcard. That emphasizes the division more than a second wildcard.

false.

Under the old system you had teams give up once they clinched one of four spots and too often wild card teams were making deep runs.

 

[Big_Palooka]

If they did a 3 game series it would make the division winners wait around too long. It would be almost impossible to start a 3 game series on Monday if you didn't know for sure what teams would be in it and who would have home field until after the games on Sunday. I suppose they could play (Tues, Wed, Thur) and then travel to the next round and start on Friday as the home field for Friday would already be known.

With just the 3 division winners and one wild card (which I preferred), the argument was that the wild card team wasn't at any disadvantage compared to those that won their division.

Now the wild card teams have to get past the 1 game playoff and the winning team most likely will only get to use their ace for one game in the next round. That puts the wild card teams at a disadvantage compared to winning the division.

 

[bdg8]

The former MLB commissioner Bud Selig had the brainstorm
to heighten fan interest in August and September by having 10
teams make the playoffs. The new MLB commish will probably
adjust the wild card situation into a 3 game series. Also look
for MLB to go back to 154 game season instead of 162.

I thought there was zero chance that the owners would agree to fewer games, since they like revenue

 

[Guido Sarducci]

Makes winning the division more important, you can't let good teams sit for a week while the teams play a 3 game series, makes more money for owners, etc. etc.

I understand money, but again it's illogical. And one game really doesn't make that much in the grand scheme of things. If you don't think teams can wait that long then don't have a 5th team. 3 division champs and one wildcard makes perfect sense, and again that falls more into the "winning division more important" logic. Adding a 5th team and having the 4th and 5th play one game and calling it definitive, then saying the next 3 rounds take 5 to 7 games is just silly.

 

[ANYCHawk]

I understand money, but again it's illogical. And one game really doesn't make that much in the grand scheme of things. If you don't think teams can wait that long then don't have a 5th team. 3 division champs and one wildcard makes perfect sense, and again that falls more into the "winning division more important" logic. Adding a 5th team and having the 4th and 5th play one game and calling it definitive, then saying the next 3 rounds take 5 to 7 games is just silly.

You're thinking of it wrong.

A) you are thinking of one game to make money. It's not. Look how many more teams think they are in it with a second wild card team. Owners are making money in July and august in addition to the one game playoff.

B) again the four team set up was diminishing the division set up. Teams were giving up once they got one of the four spots and a team that didn't win its division was having too much success. Now not winning your division has a real deterrant (you can't use your ace twice in a five game series and more travel).

 

[ANYCHawk]

I thought there was zero chance that the owners would agree to fewer games, since they like revenue

It's still really low, but at least Manfied is out there talking about it. But, Lute is wrong length of series has nothing to do with the wild card series length. It's all about not making the better teams take five days off.

 

[Guido Sarducci]

You're thinking of it wrong.

A) you are thinking of one game to make money. It's not. Look how many more teams think they are in it with a second wild card team. Owners are making money in July and august in addition to the one game playoff.

B) again the four team set up was diminishing the division set up. Teams were giving up once they got one of the four spots and a team that didn't win its division was having too much success. Now not winning your division has a real deterrant (you can't use your ace twice in a five game series and more travel).

I don't think I'm seeing it wrong whatsoever since I'm arguing logic, not contrived efforts to alter outcomes.

If you go back to every post since my first, I've argued for a LOGICAL reason to say at every level for 100 years you need 5-7 games to determine the better of two teams, but now you are saying it's only 1, but for one game and then the next 3 it requires a long series. You haven't explained how it logically makes sense, you've argued reasons the MLB leadership thought it would make them money. I understand all that.

 

[Guido Sarducci]

I don't think I'm seeing it wrong whatsoever since I'm arguing logic, not contrived efforts to alter outcomes.

If you go back to every post since my first, I've argued for a LOGICAL reason to say at every level for 100 years you need 5-7 games to determine the better of two teams, but now you are saying it's only 1, but for one game and then the next 3 it requires a long series. You haven't explained how it logically makes sense, you've argued reasons the MLB leadership thought it would make them money. I understand all that.

And the following makes no sense to me, "Teams were giving up once they got one of the four spots". Explain. So now a division winner up 10 games from everyone else game up when there was four spots, but not now that there was 5 they are fighting it out? If you had 4 teams and the 4th was way ahead of the 5th they might ease up. If you have 5 and he's way ahead of the 6th he eases up. And so on. That phenomenon isn't really changing.

 

[lucas80]

Why does there have to be logic, Guido? It isn't like Mr. Spock is running baseball. Bud Selig wanted to heighten interest among fans of teams who weren't going to win their division, and he wanted TV ratings. He got that, and, no, it isn't logical.

 

[ANYCHawk]

And the following makes no sense to me, "Teams were giving up once they got one of the four spots". Explain. So now a division winner up 10 games from everyone else game up when there was four spots, but not now that there was 5 they are fighting it out? If you had 4 teams and the 4th was way ahead of the 5th they might ease up. If you have 5 and he's way ahead of the 6th he eases up. And so on. That phenomenon isn't really changing.

it's not that hard. Teams once they had a spot stopped playing. There have been numerous instances where teams rested guys once they knew they had at least the wild card and didn't keep trying to win the division. They knew they had a three game series no matter what. Now there is no real reason to keep going and not just settle for a wild card.

 

[Titanhawk2]

It keeps more teams and fan bases interest in September for the most part. It's unusual that the Cubs and Pirates both had such good records, so everyone new 3 teams from that division would make it, but in the AL there were 5 teams vying for those 2 spots up until the final weekend of the season. The extra game is that great other than it is an elimination game.

 

[hawkeyekid]

I love it. And this coming from a guy who likes the Yankees and the Cubs.

Makes a lot of baseball games meaningful down the stretch. It gives more teams the feeling of making big moves at the trade deadline because they feel they are still in it. And the atmosphere at these stadiums have been great.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Just part of the joke that professional sports has become. Just starting the playoffs on October 7? We should be seeing game 7 of the world series.

 

[markfromj]

We should be seeing game 7 of the world series.

Why?

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Why?

Because the season is too long.

 

[joelbc1]

I'm posting this as the Cubs are up 1-0 in the 1st, so no matter what happens this is not sour grapes.

I really don't understand having a one game playoff. Baseball has for decades essentially said that it takes a long series, up to 7 games, to determine who is the better of two teams. So how is a one game playoff logical?

It's a "qualifier".....pure and simple. It allows more teams into the MLB play-off system and keeps fan interest alive for many teams......that means more money for the owners. It's not a bad thing.
Teams need to win more games during the season to avoid "the one game" playoff.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

I thought there was zero chance that the owners would agree to fewer games, since they like revenue

Why do they need 154 games?? I'm a baseball guy, but the season is WAY TO LONG. I mean it starts in April and goes until dang near November! That leaves only 4 months?

I would suggest starting it May 1st and having the world series done by October. I mean you watch some of those early season games and the stands aren't even half full. Plus late in the year as well, the stands are empty for afternoon games.

Also can't believe how long NHL season is as well (opening night October 7th) and the Stanley Cup won't be played until June? That's another long season.

Meanwhile football only gets 17 weeks.

 

[CuttyDoesIt]

It's a "qualifier".....pure and simple. It allows more teams into the MLB play-off system and keeps fan interest alive for many teams......that means more money for the owners. It's not a bad thing.
Teams need to win more games during the season to avoid "the one game" playoff.

Come on, the Cubs/ Pirates won 97/98 games.

That is more then every other team is baseball besides 1.

 

[Fan In Black]

There is no explanation. It's stupid.

 

[bdg8]

Why do they need 154 games?? I'm a baseball guy, but the season is WAY TO LONG. I mean it starts in April and goes until dang near November! That leaves only 4 months?

I would suggest starting it May 1st and having the world series done by October. I mean you watch some of those early season games and the stands aren't even half full. Plus late in the year as well, the stands are empty for afternoon games.

Also can't believe how long NHL season is as well (opening night October 7th) and the Stanley Cup won't be played until June? That's another long season.

Meanwhile football only gets 17 weeks.

Because cutting the number of home games lowers the revenue. Is that a hard concept

 

[joelbc1]

Come on, the Cubs/ Pirates won 97/98 games.

That is more then every other team is baseball besides 1.

Yep...and yet both could not win their division. So they had to play this one game "qualifier." The rules clearly state the winner of each division is "in" and the next two teams play a one game "qualifier" for the right to continue. It's pretty simple. You and I don't have to like it...but the "rules" are pretty damned explicit.

 

[CuttyDoesIt]

Yep...and yet both could not win their division. So they had to play this one game "qualifier." The rules clearly state the winner of each division is "in" and the next two teams play a one game "qualifier" for the right to continue. It's pretty simple. You and I don't have to like it...but the "rules" are pretty damned explicit.

Thanks for explaining that to me. This thread is about whether that is a good rule.

 

[fredjr82]

The World Series is already bleeding into November. Could you imagine a World Series game in November in Chicago, NY, KC, StL?. Why is everyone up in arms now about it? The Yanks/Mariners played one of the best "1 game playoffs" in recent memory to advance to the NLDS that year. Of course when teams are winning the game 3 or 4 to nothing it's boring. If these games came down to the 9th inning we'd all be cheering the drama they provided. Now we bitch that it isn't fair to the other team

 

[joelbc1]

Thanks for explaining that to me. This thread is about whether that is a good rule.

Sure its a good rule. Why isn't it? Its not like something has been hidden? If BASEBALL does not like the rule...they can change it in a flash.
Good rule or bad rule....its all subjective. I think they ought to change the rules for the playoffs so the Red Sox and the Yankees play for the League title every year. But, that is NOT the rule.

 

[CuttyDoesIt]

Sure its a good rule. Why isn't it? Its not like something has been hidden? If BASEBALL does not like the rule...they can change it in a flash.
Good rule or bad rule....its all subjective. I think they ought to change the rules for the playoffs so the Red Sox and the Yankees play for the League title every year. But, that is NOT the rule.

Why isnt it? because after the Divisional Series 2 out of 3 best teams in baseball will be eliminated no matter what.

Also, you play at least a 3 game series for 5 months but then you go and a one game series.

 

[joelbc1]

Why isnt it? because after the Divisional Series 2 out of 3 best teams in baseball will be eliminated no matter what.

Also, you play at least a 3 game series for 5 months but then you go and a one game series.

So what? Life is tough all over. That is the way the pickle squirts. What the hell use is playing 162 games a year then? The season matters!

Back in the day, the winner of the AL played the winner of the NL a best of 7. That's how the championship was determined. Lots of really good teams never sniffed the World Series. Boo-hoo. Life goes on.

 

[CuttyDoesIt]

So what? Life is tough all over. That is the way the pickle squirts. What the hell use is playing 162 games a year then? The season matters!

Back in the day, the winner of the AL played the winner of the NL a best of 7. That's how the championship was determined. Lots of really good teams never sniffed the World Series. Boo-hoo. Life goes on.

But you are saying the season doesnt matter by giving the best record in the NL the team with the 2nd best record in the NL in the first round

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

So what? Life is tough all over. That is the way the pickle squirts. What the hell use is playing 162 games a year then? The season matters!

Back in the day, the winner of the AL played the winner of the NL a best of 7. That's how the championship was determined. Lots of really good teams never sniffed the World Series. Boo-hoo. Life goes on.

Yeah well, thats not how it is anymore. Seed the 5 teams according to record.