Strike-aversary

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Well, it's nearly unthinkable, but Duan was unabashed about suggesting that the way to crown the truly best team is to bag the post-season altogether. The team with the best record is your champ.

Not all that unthinkable considering that things ran that way for nearly 70 years with the NL & AL being very separate entities back then.
Of course it would be totally unthinkable NOW, but that's because we've been increasingly conditioned that way.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Who is unabashed Duan? I'm confused.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Frayed Knot wrote: A = Werner B = Manfred C = The other guy

correct

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: Who is unabashed Duan? I'm confused.

You don't remember duan? Our erstwhile poster from Dublin? Footballer? Rock journalist?

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ah! Didn't see Duan in the thread and when you
start whipping out stuff like unabashed I get even
more confused!!

And then people know what you mean and that
confuses me even further.

[Edgy MD]

No, it's an oldentimes case duan made.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Yes, sorry for even saying. I don't remember olden
time posts from a guy in Dublin.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: ... I also blame a good deal of my lack of interest on the wild card slots also introduced that year. To my way of seeing things, it cheapened the title considerably. I hate to say this, but I think that baseball is a deeply flawed sport because of the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game -- significantly more so than in any of the other major team sports I'm aware of. The way to counter this is to keep the # of playoff teams at a minimum -- otherwise the sport won't be rewarding excellence as strongly as it ought to. Of course, the powers of the game care about $$ more than anything else, and more playoff teams brings in more $$ -- so whenever it's $$ versus the purity of the game, or $$ versus anything -- well we all know which factor is going to override every other one. The last NINE NFL seasons have produced more Super Bowl winners from the bottom of their playoff structure [Two 4th seeds, One 5th seed, Two 6th seeds = 5] than from the top half [Two 1st seeds, one 2nd seed, one 3rd seed = 4] and remember that those 5 & 6 seeds wouldn't even make the playoffs in MLB's 1995-2011 system. Looked at another way, that's as many LAST seeds as first and 1/3 of the most recent 9 champions were somewhere in the 7th to 12th best team that season. But, as usual, a trait which is cited as an asset in where football is concerned (PARITY!!! ... Oh those wacky playoffs) is treated as a negative in baseball (What a shitty sport, the best teams don't always win!) I don't dispute your point about too many 'post-season' teams having a negative effect that's usually not discussed among playoff-happy leagues and the networks that flog them, only that this is neither unique to baseball nor, IMO, more pronounced. NHL hockey (if you're one who considers that a major sport) is MUCH more random come Stanley Cup tourney time. The NBA is probably less so (even as the playoffs are double the size and length) but that speaks more to the sizable gap between the top shelf teams and the also-rans that make up the back end of the 'non-lottery' gaggle. Roughly half of their playoff teams (and often more) in any given year have no chance to win and everyone knows it going in.

--------------------------

I see your points. However, when I wrote that baseball is flawed, I was referring to the dynamics of the game itself --- the way the game is played on the diamond. I believe that there's more luck than there ought to be for the game not to be flawed. So because this imperfection is inherent to the play of the game and stems from the nature of baseball, it would continue to exist no matter how many teams are awarded playoff spots. I wasn't blaming baseball's flaws on the playoff system. I meant to write that the expanded playoff system exacerbates the problem. Keeping playoff teams at a minimum in baseball would, in my opinion, act as a counterbalance against the prevalence of luck in the game. (/pipe dream)

Frayed Knot wrote: The NBA is probably less so (even as the playoffs are double the size and length) but that speaks more to the sizable gap between the top shelf teams and the also-rans that make up the back end of the 'non-lottery' gaggle. Roughly half of their playoff teams (and often more) in any given year have no chance to win and everyone knows it going in.

I disagree --somewhat-- with this point, at least as it relates to my post. The reason that the elite teams generally win the NBA championship is because, as you say, they are considerably better than their other playoff rivals, but also, because the game is truer ... there's less luck involved ... and therefore, a seven game series between two NBA teams is a fairly reliable way to determine which of two competing teams is the better one.

In baseball, there are also considerable gaps between playoff teams. But the prevalence of luck in baseball shrinks that gap. A 100 win in baseball is considerably better than an 85 win team. But in a short series, I wouldn't expect the 100 win team to win as often as its record indicates it should. Also, another factor that has nothing to do with luck is that postseason baseball is markedly different from regular season baseball because teams can skip their 5th starters, and occasionally, even their fourth starters. Often, the gap between teams in the regular season is based on the superior team having a pitching staff that is much deeper than that of its rivals. That advantage is eroded, if not lost entirely in the post season.

The last NINE NFL seasons have produced more Super Bowl winners from the bottom of their playoff structure [Two 4th seeds, One 5th seed, Two 6th seeds = 5] than from the top half [Two 1st seeds, one 2nd seed, one 3rd seed = 4] and remember that those 5 & 6 seeds wouldn't even make the playoffs in MLB's 1995-2011 system. Looked at another way, that's as many LAST seeds as first and 1/3 of the most recent 9 champions were somewhere in the 7th to 12th best team that season.

It's pointless to have this discussion within the context of the NFL. They play a sixteen game season and the playoffs is a one game elimination tournament. Small. Sample. Size. And it'll never get fixed because the game is too violent for players to play even slightly more than they already do.

Didn't we have this discussion once before?

[Frayed Knot]

The reason that the elite teams generally win the NBA championship is because, as you say, they are considerably better than their other playoff rivals, but also, because the game is truer ... there's less luck involved ... and therefore, a seven game series between two NBA teams is a fairly reliable way to determine which of two competing teams is the better one. ... In baseball, there are also considerable gaps between playoff teams.

But not nearly to the same extent.
Even in your (larger than usual) example of a 100-win team vs an 85-win club, that's a team winning 62% of their games vs 53%. In the NBA the 1st and sometimes 2nd round contests (which are usually no contest at all) almost always feature clubs with .750+ winning pct against sub-.500 stragglers. THAT, as much as anything else, is why the better team wins. By rounds three & four in the NBA (for those still awake by that point) the outcomes get closer to random/tougher to predict.

It's pointless to have this discussion within the context of the NFL. They play a sixteen game season and the playoffs is a one game elimination tournament. Small. Sample. Size. And it'll never get fixed because the game is too violent for players to play even slightly more than they already do.

Not pointless when the best team not winning is cited as a reason why MLB's post-season set-up is flawed but cited as a product of the genius of the NFL when the same thing happens in that sport.
The factors may be different but the results aren't.

[Ceetar]

eh, one man's flaw is another one's narrative. I think that inherent luck is part of what makes us all romantic about baseball. It's possible to root and cheer for the "bad players" and still have them succeed. The MLB version of Tim Tebow could luck into a season where he hits .300 and his incoherent supporters could scream for years as he's relegated to bench time and "will he return to his glory year" and all that.

Hell, look at Justin Turner this year. Generally not a very good player, but sorta fun-loving and endears himself to fans. He's one of those guys that adds some kind of excitement outside of the strictly performance based excitement. This year he's having a very good year and it's fun.

You get Todd Pratt hitting series winning home runs, pitcher's making one bad pitch that gets away in game 163 to advance to the playoffs, a slow-roller that's mishandled but might have been a hit anyway that's talked about and debated endlessly for nearly 30 years even in non-sports ways sometimes.

That's why I happen to love the playoffs the way they are. (And granted, I barely remember non Wild Card play, so there is no nostalgia here) You've got two sudden death games at the end of the season that feature all the luck and bad bounces and moment by moment stress that makes baseball so great. Yes, it's completely not fair to either team, but they could've won the division. That's the point. The 'best teams' over the 162 large sample get the safety net. Honestly I think less people would have a problem with it if they stopped referring to it as two playoff teams and instead called it a "play-in" round or something.

I wonder how the game would do if it was played in a 'neutral' field? Say they decided where each game would be played prior to the season, worst record in the league or something, and sold tickets to it like game 163. (hey look, revenue for the team that finished last, an exciting game, etc. revenue sharing?) I know I'd have been intrigued to buy a ticket to that game if it was at Citi Field. It also gives the fans of a team that's sorta waiting around a taste of meaningful baseball, helps keep the more casual fan from checking out for good? It might be fun. Hell, it might help the regionalness (which isn't a problem) too. If I watched say the Pirates beat the Giants to advance, I might have a little more vested interest in watching the Pirates play in the playoffs. I'd get to know the players from that game. It's sort of a last stop of the bandwagon to the playoffs, but hell, why not?

[Ceetar]

also, fuck the NFL. It's a league about gambling and an excuse to sit on the couch every Sunday and drink beer. If the NFL decided it was going to be a lacrosse league and marketed it the same way they'd probably get the same fervor. (Different rant here, but NBA really should force-feed the WNBA to it's fans. would be a great idea)

[stevejrogers]

Ceetar wrote: (Different rant here, but NBA really should force-feed the WNBA to it's fans. would be a great idea)

They, and ESPN have tried over the years.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: also, fuck the NFL. It's a league about gambling and an excuse to sit on the couch every Sunday and drink beer.

I love football season, and sometimes I sit on a chair!!

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: also, fuck the NFL. It's a league about gambling and an excuse to sit on the couch every Sunday and drink beer. I love football season, and sometimes I sit on a chair!!

oh, I don't really mind that aspect of it, though I find myself busy on Sundays and don't care enough to schedule around it but I need a week recovery time before I even think about it again.

[Frayed Knot]

SteveJRogers wrote: Ceetar wrote: (Different rant here, but NBA really should force-feed the WNBA to it's fans. would be a great idea) They, and ESPN have tried over the years.

The WNBA is essentially a wholly-owned (and money losing) arm of the NBA designed as an attempt to double the market for jersey sales (and therefore try to make up the lost revenue). The backing of the main league allowed it to put out of business the other women's pro league which was started a year earlier and that, at least initially, had better talent and the better paid talent.
That outlets which carry the NBA (mainly ESPN but not limited to them) make it a point to give WNBA scores in their run-downs makes one wonder whether that practice is a courtesy or more of a quid pro quo.

[Frayed Knot]

And it wasn't my point to turn this into a baseball vs football discussion, especially as I find those arguments both tedious and pointless, akin to cat & dog owners arguing over which is smarter. All that winds up happening in those clashes is that each side cites the strong points of their breed which does nothing more than to prove that cats don't make very good dogs and that dogs would be really lousy at being cats.
I'm just disagreeing with the notion that baseball's post-season 'randomness' is particularly unique, and when similar arguments for one is often used against the other.
[Random Sportscaster]The reason I hate baseball and refuse to talk about it is that these number geeks have ruined the whole sport ... so let's get back to our discussion QB Ratings and RPI Indexes[/Random Sportscaster]

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm just disagreeing with the notion that baseball's post-season 'randomness' is particularly unique, and when similar arguments for one is often used against the other. [Random Sportscaster]The reason I hate baseball and refuse to talk about it is that these number geeks have ruined the whole sport ... so let's get back to our discussion QB Ratings and RPI Indexes[/Random Sportscaster]

Well, you seem to be disagreeing with me. And I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. You seemed to have set that up one, and then sucked me in. I simply said that the expanded playoff system in baseball was a big turnoff for me, and that it exacerbates what I consider to be a problem with the sport -- that the ratio of luck to skill in baseball is greater than my tastes would prefer. I don't understand why my point should be diminished because of things you point out in some of the other sports.

You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories.

Baseball is a less-true game, right? And luck is a leveler, isn't it?

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories. Baseball is a less-true game, right? And luck is a leveler, isn't it?

Bingo! I'm with you on that one. Also, an elite player has less of an overall impact in baseball. A basketball team, for example, can run its entire offense around a Michael Jordan or a Lebron James. Dick Butkus or Patrick Willis can play just about every snap.

But a baseball team can't have its superstar hitter take 15 or 20 at-bats a game, can't even have its superstar hitter take the key at bat in a game, unless that hitter is available to pinch-hit, and can't have its ace start every game.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport.

Sure you did. You didn't specifically use the word 'unique' but you did say that the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game was "significantly more so [in baseball] than in any of the other major team sports" which was the major turn-off for you about baseball's post-season.

Now you can choose to watch, or not to watch, anything you want, I'm not one to tell people what they should be doing in their free time. All I'm doing is pointing out that, using that same logic, one should be just as dismissive about the NFL's playoff (and much, MUCH more about hockey's) and whereas the NBA does stay true to form more often (at least in the early rounds) I contend that that's largely to do with the gap between the top and second tier teams (and about that sport's huge home/road gap) than it is about the game itself.

[Vic Sage]

I simply said that the expanded playoff system in baseball was a big turnoff for me, and that it exacerbates what I consider to be a problem with the sport -- that the ratio of luck to skill in baseball is greater than my tastes would prefer.

I don't consider it a problem. Baseball is the game that most replicates life. As far as i'm concerned, that's its great strength.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I don't want life from my sports. I get enough life from life.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. Sure you did. You didn't specifically use the word 'unique' but you did say that the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game was "significantly more so [in baseball] than in any of the other major team sports" which was the major turn-off for you about baseball's post-season.

Not really. I was super fine with the way things were before expanded playoffs, even though whatever luck exists in baseball is the same with or without wild cards. It's the wild cards that turned me off -- not the luck. Baseball's a long season and the luck gets more or less sorted out over as many as 162 games, so I reasoned. And even though the playoffs and World Series are a crap-shoot, at least the old playoffs system virtually ensured that it would be contested between the elite teams. I don't see this happening under expanded playoffs, and to my way of experiencing the game, the wild cards have cheapened the game to the point where it's ruined my enjoyment of the post-season.

I understand what you mean when you say that the best NFL teams don't always win the Super Bowl, but it's not a proper comparison, again, to my way of seeing things and experiencing the game.

First off, I wouldn't attribute that to luck as much as I would to a very short season, and a single elimination playoff tournament.

Secondly, who's to say who the best NFL teams are? They play 16 games. That's the whole season. 16 games. That's not even three weeks of a baseball season. And I can cherry-pick different three week stretches of a baseball season to prove just about anything I want to. If the 2014 baseball season was comprised of the first three weeks of the season, for example, Clayton Kershaw goes from a pitcher on the verge of completing one of the most dominant seasons ever, to someone who doesn't throw a single pitch and has "DID NOT PLAY" instead of stats on the 2014 line on the back of next year's baseball cards.

If I pick a more recent three week stretch, the NY Mets, a bad baseball team, suddenly appear to be World Series Contenders and the local tabloids are writing about Lucas Duda as if he's the second coming of Babe Ruth. See what I mean by "16 games"?

Last year, the Arizona Cardinals didn't even make the playoffs even though they won seven of their last nine games, including a win at Seattle. Who's to say that if the NFL was 40 games long, the Cards don't win the title running away? It's not luck, but not enough games. I suppose that I'd feel safe saying that the team that went 12-4 was better than the 6-10 team. But ranking NFL teams three or four games apart based on the ridiculously small sample size that constitutes an NFL season is, I think, a fool's errand.

And I accept all of this in the NFL because there's nothing that can be done about it. NFL teams can't play 162 games, or 82, or probably even 20. So I accept those limitations. But as far as baseball goes, I can't get it out of my mind that they ruined a good thing with the wild cards.

[Frayed Knot]

- I was pretty sure I already had a handle on the differences between a 16 & a 162 game season, but thanks for the primer anyway.

- If the NFL playoffs are better for you despite the fact that the best teams not only don't always survive the post-season but sometimes aren't even there* then, by all means, enjoy.
* even with a system that allows >1/3 of them in and is all but certain to expand even further, probably as soon as next season

- I stand by my original statement (which was the only thing I set out to discuss on this topic) that is, with the exception of the NBA (although not for reasons of that game being "truer"), the luck/randomness/whateveryouwannacallit of MLB's playoff system is no more likely to produce a non-best winner than those of the other major team sports (about the same, I figure, as the NFL and MUCH LESS likely than hockey). Plus I think the newly-installed double-WC system has put back at least some of the advantage to the division winners that was taken away when the WC was first concocted.

- As always, your mileage may vary.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Me, I really despise the latest wild-card innovation. A one-game playoff is fine for teams that end with the same record, but the two wild card teams could be separated by five or six games in the standings. To resolve that difference with just one game seems totally wrong to me. I know the argument is that it makes finishing in first place more of a reward, and that's true, but I don't like how it can potentially allow a third-place team to take such a great leap forward. I'd be much better with it if it was a best-of-three series rather than a best-of-one. (Those three games can even be played in two days. One game on Monday and a day/night doubleheader on Tuesday.)

[Edgy MD]

It's the nature of playoffs that --- more or less by design --- they give lesser-record teams a chance to steal better-record teams' bacon.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: It's the nature of playoffs that --- more or less by design --- they give lesser-record teams a chance to steal better-record teams' bacon.

well yeah. If they designed it so the best team won 90% of the time, where would the drama and intrigue come from?

The only thing I really dislike about the MLB playoffs is all the off time that allows a different roster construction than the regular season. I don't like teams being to fly with just 3 starting pitchers sometimes.

[Gwreck]

One note I didn't see here yet: the Wild Cards offer a means of fixing the imbalances in the schedule.

This year's example: Seattle plays 19 games each against the Angels and the Athletics, but are in third place. Would they be in first place if they were in the East or Central? Quite possibly.

[Vic Sage]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Me, I really despise the latest wild-card innovation. A one-game playoff is fine for teams that end with the same record, but the two wild card teams could be separated by five or six games in the standings. To resolve that difference with just one game seems totally wrong to me. I know the argument is that it makes finishing in first place more of a reward, and that's true, but I don't like how it can potentially allow a third-place team to take such a great leap forward. I'd be much better with it if it was a best-of-three series rather than a best-of-one. (Those three games can even be played in two days. One game on Monday and a day/night doubleheader on Tuesday.)

I disagree. The only things that makes a WC system work for me at all is if the teams that don't win their division are significantly disadvantaged against those who did. And i think a one-game playoff (actually, its not a playoff game; it's a "play-in" game) accomplishes that. Teams will not want to be subject to the vagaries of a 1-game post-season, and so will go to the whip down the stretch to try and win the division instead of just resting guys and cruising, if the difference between winning the division or getting the WC is more significant than being able to rest key players.

As to any notion of unfairness to the 1st WC team... look, you either win the division or you don't. If your team doesn't, whether by a little or by a alot, they should just consider themselves lucky to have any post-season at all. It's the very unpredictability of 1 game that makes it such a ballbuster and a fate teams would prefer to avoid. It also prevents such a team from setting up its rotation, likely having to burn their best starter in the play-in game before they play a team that has its rotation set up the way it wants. And that's the point; not just to keep more teams playing "meaningful games" in September but actually incentivizing teams to go hard down the stretch. If i can get that and all i have to give up is the possibility that the 4th best team may lose to the 5th best team, i'm ok with that.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Me, I really despise the latest wild-card innovation. A one-game playoff is fine for teams that end with the same record, but the two wild card teams could be separated by five or six games in the standings. To resolve that difference with just one game seems totally wrong to me. I know the argument is that it makes finishing in first place more of a reward, and that's true, but I don't like how it can potentially allow a third-place team to take such a great leap forward. I'd be much better with it if it was a best-of-three series rather than a best-of-one. (Those three games can even be played in two days. One game on Monday and a day/night doubleheader on Tuesday.)

Well, my point here in praising it was strictly in the vein of the topic at hand: that if one has a problem with MLB's playoffs due, at least in part, to too many WCs moving on past season-long superior teams then the Double-WC system, with it's play-in game and the probable hole in the pitching rotation that would follow the survivor of it, should help calm your qualms.

That said, I DO like it better for many of the reasons Vic stated.