2015 MLB Season Thread

[GGGG]

You had me until this part.  If you are going to do away with divisions because they are unfair, you also can't have schedules where by design you give one team a more difficult schedule than another.

You basically can change some of those 28 3 game series to 4 game series.  So your best bet would be to play all the interleague teams 3 times each (one series per year), and six of the intraleague teams 8 times and eight of them 9 times.

Yeah, OK.  That makes a lot more sense actually.  I guess I didn't mind a mildly weighted schedule, but then thinking about it, 32 out of 162 game is a pretty substantial weight.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I rather enjoy the Yankees playing Boston, Tampa, Baltimore, & Toronto more than anyone else.

[CTWarrior]

I rather enjoy the Yankees playing Boston, Tampa, Baltimore, & Toronto more than anyone else.

That's why this will never happen.  I imagine the Cubs fans prefer playing the Cards 18 times a year, and Dodgers/Giants, Red Sox/Yankees, etc.

I think the fairest thing would be if they could add two more teams and just have four divisions per league an no wild card.  But I don't know where there is a place that can support baseball that doesn't already have a team.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

That's why this will never happen.  I imagine the Cubs fans prefer playing the Cards 18 times a year, and Dodgers/Giants, Red Sox/Yankees, etc.

I think the fairest thing would be if they could add two more teams and just have four divisions per league an no wild card.  But I don't know where there is a place that can support baseball that doesn't already have a team.

CTWarrior,
Although, I think the 2 Wild Cards per league is working out.  Look how many teams are still in the playoff running this season with the hope of landing that second wild card spot.  It's keeping more games interesting longer.

[CTWarrior]

CTWarrior,
Although, I think the 2 Wild Cards per league is working out.  Look how many teams are still in the playoff running this season with the hope of landing that second wild card spot.  It's keeping more games interesting longer.

You are right, of course.  But the fairest thing and the most exciting/interesting thing are not necessarily the same thing.  MLB wants whatever format that will maximize attendance and interest.

The absolute fairest thing would be to play a 174 game schedule with no playoffs where everybody plays everybody else 3 times each home and away.  Similar to the EPL.  But when you are trying fill ballparks every day for 6 months it would be tough when 90% of your teams don't have a realistic chance at the best record by the All-Star break.

The second wild-card was a over-reaction to the fact that wild card teams were doing very well in the postseason and consequently teams who had wild card berths were not pushing to win the division but were rather setting themselves up for the postseason.  When you think about it, it seems dumb and arbitrary to automatically penalize the wild card since in most seasons the best 2nd place team in a 3 division alignment will be better than the worst first place team. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

If they keep the current set up in terms of division winners and wild cards, they need to look into a way to expand the wild card round to 3 games (which still isn't ideal). 

As a Cubs fan who has suffered through the rebuild (which was the right approach), it's tough to take that there's a good chance that the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the NL (and 3rd and 4th best in baseball) may have to play each other in a win-or-go-home scenario for the right to play the best team in baseball. 

I say this knowing that it doesn't play out this way every season and that things could still change over the last 40 games this season. 

[buckchuckler]

If they keep the current set up in terms of division winners and wild cards, they need to look into a way to expand the wild card round to 3 games (which still isn't ideal). 

As a Cubs fan who has suffered through the rebuild (which was the right approach), it's tough to take that there's a good chance that the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the NL (and 3rd and 4th best in baseball) may have to play each other in a win-or-go-home scenario for the right to play the best team in baseball. 

I say this knowing that it doesn't play out this way every season and that things could still change over the last 40 games this season.

I kind of like the one game.  Makes it important to win your division.  I kind of think you should be at a disadvantage as a wild card against a division winner.  Winning that division over the march of a season should have a reward. 

Logistically I think it would be difficult to make 3 games work.  That just leaves too much time for the other teams to sit and wait.  Also the schedule would be hard to work out. 1-1-1?  That's alot of travel.  2-1?  Then the team with the better record may have to play a deciding game on the road.  1-2?  The better team starts on the road. 

I like the one game.  At first I thought the drama would be a little forced, and maybe it is, but I think it plays out well.  It is that true playoff.  Win or go home. 

[wadesworld]

I kind of like the one game.  Makes it important to win your division.  I kind of think you should be at a disadvantage as a wild card against a division winner.  Winning that division over the march of a season should have a reward. 

Logistically I think it would be difficult to make 3 games work.  That just leaves too much time for the other teams to sit and wait.  Also the schedule would be hard to work out. 1-1-1?  That's alot of travel.  2-1?  Then the team with the better record may have to play a deciding game on the road.  1-2?  The better team starts on the road. 

I like the one game.  At first I thought the drama would be a little forced, and maybe it is, but I think it plays out well.  It is that true playoff.  Win or go home.

In other words, a crapshoot, a'ina?

[buckchuckler]

No.  It is a playoff.  You know, winner goes on.  Like the NCAA tournament, or the Superbowl. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I kind of like the one game.  Makes it important to win your division.  I kind of think you should be at a disadvantage as a wild card against a division winner.  Winning that division over the march of a season should have a reward. 

Logistically I think it would be difficult to make 3 games work.  That just leaves too much time for the other teams to sit and wait.  Also the schedule would be hard to work out. 1-1-1?  That's alot of travel.  2-1?  Then the team with the better record may have to play a deciding game on the road.  1-2?  The better team starts on the road. 

I like the one game.  At first I thought the drama would be a little forced, and maybe it is, but I think it plays out well.  It is that true playoff.  Win or go home.

When your team has a better record than either of the two other division winners that doesn't hold water to me.  I don't disagree that is is great theater but the Cubs and Pirates look like they are going to be punished for being in a great division as it stands today.  As a Cubs fan I am clearly biased but I don't think the current setup is ideal. 

[buckchuckler]

When your team has a better record than either of the two other division winners that doesn't hold water to me.  I don't disagree that is is great theater but the Cubs and Pirates look like they are going to be punished for being in a great division as it stands today.  As a Cubs fan I am clearly biased but I don't think the current setup is ideal.

Hey, it is still better than going home as your team would have 3 years ago right?  They are being punished for not being the best team in their division. 

I think the divisions are a logistical necessity.  Doing away with them would put teams on either coast at an extreme disadvantage.  Teams like Seattle and Miami are already disadvantages with their travel schedule.  Eliminating divisions and unbalances schedules would make it very hard on those teams. 

[wadesworld]

When your team has a better record than either of the two other division winners that doesn't hold water to me.  I don't disagree that is is great theater but the Cubs and Pirates look like they are going to be punished for being in a great division as it stands today.  As a Cubs fan I am clearly biased but I don't think the current setup is ideal.

Fine.  One wild card, 4 best of 5 Division Series, followed by 2 best of 7 Championship Series, and 1 Best of 7 World Series.  Cubs are out of the picture, Pirates play the winner of the West, Cardinals and Mets play, and nobody complains.  Better?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Fine.  One wild card, 4 best of 5 Division Series, followed by 2 best of 7 Championship Series, and 1 Best of 7 World Series.  Cubs are out of the picture, Pirates play the winner of the West, Cardinals and Mets play, and nobody complains.  Better?

Nope, but a predictable response. Regardless, you won't have to worry about potential playoff scenarios for quite a while.

[tower912]

Frustrating season for the Tigers this season.   Last night was a very pleasant interlude.  Verlander looking like the Verlander of old.    So close to a no-no.

[wadesworld]

Nope, but a predictable response. Regardless, you won't have to worry about potential playoff scenarios for quite a while.

Then why are you complaining?

[4everwarriors]

Frustrating season for the Tigers this season.   Last night was a very pleasant interlude.  Verlander looking like the Verlander of old.    So close to a no-no.

Wonder if Kate was there for da post game wrap up and such, hey?

[tower912]

Bully for him if she was. 

[🏀]

Wonder if Kate was there for da post game wrap up and such, hey?

She was at Wrigley for their series against the Cubs. I think she travels well.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Then why are you complaining?

There's a difference between complaining and having a conversation regarding a set up that I don't think is ideal.  A one-game playoff is a crapshoot and if you end with the 2nd or 3rd best record in the AL or NL I don't believe that result makes sense.  The same goes for the Pirates, assuming they aren't able to catch St. Louis.  Maybe the current set up ultimately is the best option but I think it deserves conversation.  That's hardly complaining.  Of course, you hate everything related to Chicago sports so your response isn't much of a surprise.   

[wadesworld]

There's a difference between complaining and having a conversation regarding a set up that I don't think is ideal.  A one-game playoff is a crapshoot and if you end with the 2nd or 3rd best record in the AL or NL I don't believe that result makes sense.  The same goes for the Pirates, assuming they aren't able to catch St. Louis.  Maybe the current set up ultimately is the best option but I think it deserves conversation.  That's hardly complaining.  Of course, you hate everything related to Chicago sports so your response isn't much of a surprise.

My response had absolutely nothing to do with Chicago sports.  My response has to do with the current format.  You complained about it, so I asked if you preferred the old way, when your team would be out of the Playoffs all together.  That's fine if you think that's just me hating all things Chicago sports, but in reality, that's what baseball was for my entire life until the last 3 years.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

My response had absolutely nothing to do with Chicago sports.  My response has to do with the current format.  You complained about it, so I asked if you preferred the old way, when your team would be out of the Playoffs all together.  That's fine if you think that's just me hating all things Chicago sports, but in reality, that's what baseball was for my entire life until the last 3 years.

Fair enough but questioning the format of something and thinking it can be improved is not complaining or bitching for the sake of bitching.  Of course any fan would want an additional opportunity to make the playoffs but the doesn't mean the current system doesn't have room for improvement and can't be discussed. 

[wadesworld]

Fair enough but questioning the format of something and thinking it can be improved is not complaining or bitching for the sake of bitching.  Of course any fan would want an additional opportunity to make the playoffs but the doesn't mean the current system doesn't have room for improvement and can't be discussed.

Sure it can be discussed on how to improve it, but is there ever going to be a system that is perfect and everyone is happy with?  You can argue that one team with a better record than another team shouldn't have to play in a 1 game playoff while the other team is already in a Divisional series, but then we can also get into whether playing the Brewers and Cubs outweighs having to play the Cardinals and Pirates more often than any other teams or if it's easier to play the Giants, Padres, Diamondbacks, and Rockies more than any other teams.  Records don't come in a vacuum.

The only way it could possibly all be "fair" in baseball (or any sport) is if every team plays every other team an even amount of times both at home and on the road, and that's how champions are determined.  Boring.

[CTWarrior]

In other words, a crapshoot, a'ina?

Baseball is a much different sport than basketball or football.  The worst team in baseball will beat the best team about 1 out of 3.  A single baseball game is much more of a crapshoot than other sprots, which is why baseball traditionally uses series.

As long as there are divisions playoff determination will not be completely fair.  Any solution anyone comes up with using a division format will have supporters and detractors, and neither side will really be wrong.  So you just move on with the rules in place. 

The extra wild card kicks off the playoffs with do or die games, and people tend to like those, I'd rather see the two or four best teams in each league battle it out in 7 game series, but I understand why things are the way they are.

[drewm88]

I'm fine with keeping it mostly as-is. As has been said, it'll never be completely fair. And a situation like this year--with the top three in one division--is unusual (I assume--please feel free to prove me wrong and call me dumb), but I wish they'd tweak the divisional series matchups.

The top team should play the worst team in the NLDS, but you can't re-seed after the WC game because of scheduling. Instead, if both WC teams have better records than one of the division winners, that division winner becomes seed #4 and the WC winner becomes #3 (or #2 if it's like this year.)

It's a small change that I assume would rarely come into play, but it's helpful. If the standings remain the same, it means winner of Pirates/Cubs gets the Mets, while the Dodgers face STL.

[CTWarrior]

It's a small change that I assume would rarely come into play, but it's helpful. If the standings remain the same, it means winner of Pirates/Cubs gets the Mets, while the Dodgers face STL.

That makes sense.  As it stands now, after the wild card game, the NL's best team will play its second or third best team and the fourth best team will play the fifth best team. 

I'd make a slight change to your suggestion.  Simply have the two wild cards play and then slot the winner of the game in with the other 3 team based on record.  They get their punishment by having to win a play-in game (and probably use their ace), but then they are fairly seeded from there if they survive.  If they have the second best record, they get the second seed, and so on.

With the current format, while you are punishing the wild card by making them play a play in game and then forcing them to play the best team, it seems to me your priority should be first to provide the best team with the easiest path and make all subsequent scheduling decisions from there, so that the Cards get to start with the weakest record in the playoffs.