Why?

> Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> The Dave© wrote:
> > I also don't see how basing it on regular-season W-L record would be
> > any better. Even with limited inter-league play the two leagues are
> > distinct enough that a few wins here and there doesn't really say
> > anything as to which team 'earned' it.
>
> Since there's no way to realistically determine who "earned" it,
> regular-season record is all we've got to go on. The same happened in
> the NBA this year with Boston getting home court because they play in
> the weaker conference. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have,
> and there's no reasonable justification for doing it any other way
> IMO.
>
> And, though home-field means less in baseball than other sports, it
> might keep the end of the regular season more interesting for those
> teams who have already clinched a division because they still have
> something to play for.

Eh. I'd quibble with with 'best'. I think it has merit, and it
certainly wouldn't be a travesty, but the more I think about it the
more I'm thinking the old way was fine. On the first day of spring
training, you knew if you would have home-field advantage in the WS or
not, then you played the games and forgot about it. Not that I'm
afraid of change, but I also don't believe change should be made for
change sake. Since there doesn't seem to be any real difference it
strikes me as just that.

In a way it's kind of a non-controversy, I think. Other than maybe
some minor rumblings, I'm not aware of any great level of
dissatisfaction with the old system. I don't think anybody was
clamoring for change, just that MLB thought it up just to "do
something".

Now, if you want incentive for clinched teams to play better, I've
toyed around with the idea of the #1 seed having all home games in the
1st round of playoffs and the wildcard having none. A bit more
radical, of course, but I think that'd be a real incentive. I also
think it would put to rest any talk of a WC team not having earned
their right to be in the WS. (If the WC won, then it'd be as usual
from the 2nd round on.)
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

The Dave© wrote:

>> Since there's no way to realistically determine who "earned" it,
>> regular-season record is all we've got to go on. The same happened in
>> the NBA this year with Boston getting home court because they play in
>> the weaker conference. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have,
>> and there's no reasonable justification for doing it any other way
>> IMO.
>>
>> And, though home-field means less in baseball than other sports, it
>> might keep the end of the regular season more interesting for those
>> teams who have already clinched a division because they still have
>> something to play for.
>
> Eh. I'd quibble with with 'best'.

I meant "best" in the sense of determining who earned it, unless you want to
pull out some Bill James-style numbers to determine that.

> I think it has merit, and it
> certainly wouldn't be a travesty, but the more I think about it the
> more I'm thinking the old way was fine. On the first day of spring
> training, you knew if you would have home-field advantage in the WS or
> not, then you played the games and forgot about it. Not that I'm
> afraid of change, but I also don't believe change should be made for
> change sake.

It's not for change sake -- it's for the sake of at least *improved* fairness
and rewarding the best-performing teams throughout the regular season, which
seems perfectly reasonable (especially since they do it in every other sport,
and in every other baseball playoff series *except* the WS).

> In a way it's kind of a non-controversy, I think. Other than maybe
> some minor rumblings, I'm not aware of any great level of
> dissatisfaction with the old system. I don't think anybody was
> clamoring for change, just that MLB thought it up just to "do
> something".

I don't know about "clamoring", but a lot of folks thought it was stupid for a
long time. But stupid is better than moronic, which is what we currently have.

> Now, if you want incentive for clinched teams to play better, I've
> toyed around with the idea of the #1 seed having all home games in the
> 1st round of playoffs and the wildcard having none. A bit more
> radical, of course, but I think that'd be a real incentive. I also
> think it would put to rest any talk of a WC team not having earned
> their right to be in the WS. (If the WC won, then it'd be as usual
> from the 2nd round on.)

Realistically that will never happen for financial reasons.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

thisplanetsux wrote:

> Being a fan of a
> National League team is a bottom rung source of intellectual self-
> esteem.

As is bashing National League fans for disliking the DH....Your self-esteem
feeling good now?
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

On Apr 29, 3:27 pm, Jamal Bernhard <no....RemoveThis@nowhere.net> wrote:
> thisplanetsux wrote:
> > Being a fan of a
> > National League team is a bottom rung source of intellectual self-
> > esteem.
>
> As is bashing National League fans for disliking the DH....Your self-esteem
> feeling good now?

Erm, I haven't bashed anyone for disliking the DH. Did I even say the
DH rule was a good rule? My self-esteem comes from rejecting the
idiot rantings of Malcontent. Is that clear enough? If you want to
join him and try to prove that there is something mentally defective
about followers of non-NL ball then be my guest. Convince us the DH
rule only exists because the vast majority of the world is too stupid
to understand handling pitchers in the batting order.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

thisplanetsux wrote:

>>> Being a fan of a
>>> National League team is a bottom rung source of intellectual self-
>>> esteem.
>>
>> As is bashing National League fans for disliking the DH....Your self-esteem
>> feeling good now?
>
> Erm, I haven't bashed anyone for disliking the DH.

Well that's the way it came off to me -- I'm not sure how else to interpret your
quote above. You're taking a poke at National League fans, many of whom are
National League fans because they dislike the DH.

> Did I even say the
> DH rule was a good rule? My self-esteem comes from rejecting the
> idiot rantings of Malcontent. Is that clear enough? If you want to
> join him and try to prove that there is something mentally defective
> about followers of non-NL ball then be my guest. Convince us the DH
> rule only exists because the vast majority of the world is too stupid
> to understand handling pitchers in the batting order.

Your quote above was about National League fans in general, not Malcontent's
ramblings in specific. Maybe you only wanted to target Malcontent, but you seem
to have caught all National League fans in the net.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

> Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> The Dave© wrote:
> > In a way it's kind of a non-controversy, I think. Other than maybe
> > some minor rumblings, I'm not aware of any great level of
> > dissatisfaction with the old system. I don't think anybody was
> > clamoring for change, just that MLB thought it up just to "do
> > something".
>
> I don't know about "clamoring", but a lot of folks thought it was
> stupid for a long time. But stupid is better than moronic, which is
> what we currently have.

Agreed.

> > Now, if you want incentive for clinched teams to play better, I've
> > toyed around with the idea of the #1 seed having all home games in
> > the 1st round of playoffs and the wildcard having none. A bit more
> > radical, of course, but I think that'd be a real incentive. I also
> > think it would put to rest any talk of a WC team not having earned
> > their right to be in the WS. (If the WC won, then it'd be as usual
> > from the 2nd round on.)
>
> Realistically that will never happen for financial reasons.

You're right, it would never happen. It's an intriging idea, though.

Bob Costas, in his book "Fair Ball", wanted to do away with the WC and
give the #1 a bye. At the time I agreed with him on most of his
points, but have since come to like the 3 division format with the WC.
It has created far more late-season interest and excitement than I ever
thought it would have.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

On Apr 29, 11:33 pm, Jamal Bernhard <no... RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote:
> thisplanetsux wrote:
> >>> Being a fan of a
> >>> National League team is a bottom rung source of intellectual self-
> >>> esteem.
>
> >> As is bashing National League fans for disliking the DH....Your self-esteem
> >> feeling good now?
>
> > Erm, I haven't bashed anyone for disliking the DH.
>
> Well that's the way it came off to me -- I'm not sure how else to interpret your
> quote above. You're taking a poke at National League fans, many of whom are
> National League fans because they dislike the DH.
>
> > Did I even say the
> > DH rule was a good rule? My self-esteem comes from rejecting the
> > idiot rantings of Malcontent. Is that clear enough? If you want to
> > join him and try to prove that there is something mentally defective
> > about followers of non-NL ball then be my guest. Convince us the DH
> > rule only exists because the vast majority of the world is too stupid
> > to understand handling pitchers in the batting order.
>
> Your quote above was about National League fans in general, not Malcontent's
> ramblings in specific. Maybe you only wanted to target Malcontent, but you seem
> to have caught all National League fans in the net.

The context was unambiguous. Malcontent stated clearly that he
regarded non-NL fans as lacking the intellect to appreciate the
superiority of NL ball. I was not casting any net. I was simply
insulting him for relying on the rules of NL baseball as evidence of
his intellectual superiority.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

The Dave© wrote:

> While I have come around to the WC idea, I would prefer to keep the
> number of them as is. I think adding too many teams would dilute the
> playoff concept too much. I'd even like to pare back NBA, NHL, and NFL
> playoffs a bit.

I think I'm okay with these other sports -- I find playoffs exciting. But there
are real differences between baseball and these other sports: (a) the length of
the season, (b) the smaller statistical differences between teams, and (c) the
lesser impact of home-field advantage. In a real sense, every baseball playoff
team has a shot because even a bad team can go 12-6 over a one-month period if
they get hot or catch a few breaks (or both), even while playing more games on
the road. The baseball regular-season is a "marathon" for a reason, and by
letting more teams in you destroy that reason IMO.

That said, I'm not sure the difference between 4 playoff teams in the current
format vs. 5 playoff teams and giving a first-round bye to the division winners
"dilutes" the playoffs very much. Most of the time the WC race is close, so you
would be pitting two equal teams against each other for the right to battle it
out with the division winners, and the system would give a clear advantage to
those teams who can win their division over the long season.

The more I think about it, the more I like it actually.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

On Apr 30, 7:55 am, The Dave© <n....DeleteThis@no.com> wrote:
> > Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> > The Dave© wrote:
>
> > > While I have come around to the WC idea, I would prefer to keep the
> > > number of them as is. I think adding too many teams would dilute
> > > the playoff concept too much. I'd even like to pare back NBA, NHL,
> > > and NFL playoffs a bit.
>
> > I think I'm okay with these other sports -- I find playoffs exciting.
> > But there are real differences between baseball and these other
> > sports: (a) the length of the season, (b) the smaller statistical
> > differences between teams, and (c) the lesser impact of home-field
> > advantage. In a real sense, every baseball playoff team has a shot
> > because even a bad team can go 12-6 over a one-month period if they
> > get hot or catch a few breaks (or both), even while playing more
> > games on the road. The baseball regular-season is a "marathon" for a
> > reason, and by letting more teams in you destroy that reason IMO.
>
> > That said, I'm not sure the difference between 4 playoff teams in the
> > current format vs. 5 playoff teams and giving a first-round bye to
> > the division winners "dilutes" the playoffs very much. Most of the
> > time the WC race is close, so you would be pitting two equal teams
> > against each other for the right to battle it out with the division
> > winners, and the system would give a clear advantage to those teams
> > who can win their division over the long season.
>
> > The more I think about it, the more I like it actually.
>
> Do you give a credence to the idea that a bye might sap a team of their
> momentum and actually do them a disservice?

Yes, I think some baseball people would say this does no service for a
team.

> The same could be argued for one team sweeping and having a long layoff
> while the other stays sharp in playing a 7-game series, but there's
> nothing you can do about that when that happens

It's possible to fluidly schedule, so two parallel series end about
the same time (within one day of each other). That is, if one series
goes to a 2-0 lead, while the other is split 1-1 after 2 games, the
teams in the 2-0 series automatically sit a day while the deadlocked
teams play a game to get one of them to two victories. Then repeat at
each stage. It brings up some logistical problems, but would at least
get rid of the issue of teams sitting around for 4 or 5 day
stretches, going stale.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

thisplanetsux wrote:

> The context was unambiguous.

I hardly think you can call the context "unambiguous" if an educated person
misunderstands what you were trying to say. Malcontent was bashing all non-NL
fans -- it made perfect sense (especially on usenet) for you to be doing the
reverse, and that's what your comment seemed to be doing.

But I apologize for the misunderstanding.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

> Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> The Dave© wrote:
>
> > While I have come around to the WC idea, I would prefer to keep the
> > number of them as is. I think adding too many teams would dilute
> > the playoff concept too much. I'd even like to pare back NBA, NHL,
> > and NFL playoffs a bit.
>
> I think I'm okay with these other sports -- I find playoffs exciting.
> But there are real differences between baseball and these other
> sports: (a) the length of the season, (b) the smaller statistical
> differences between teams, and (c) the lesser impact of home-field
> advantage. In a real sense, every baseball playoff team has a shot
> because even a bad team can go 12-6 over a one-month period if they
> get hot or catch a few breaks (or both), even while playing more
> games on the road. The baseball regular-season is a "marathon" for a
> reason, and by letting more teams in you destroy that reason IMO.
>
> That said, I'm not sure the difference between 4 playoff teams in the
> current format vs. 5 playoff teams and giving a first-round bye to
> the division winners "dilutes" the playoffs very much. Most of the
> time the WC race is close, so you would be pitting two equal teams
> against each other for the right to battle it out with the division
> winners, and the system would give a clear advantage to those teams
> who can win their division over the long season.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I like it actually.

Do you give a credence to the idea that a bye might sap a team of their
momentum and actually do them a disservice?

The same could be argued for one team sweeping and having a long layoff
while the other stays sharp in playing a 7-game series, but there's
nothing you can do about that when that happens.

Doesn't seem to matter in football, but I agree with your points about
the differences between football and baseball.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

The Dave© wrote:

> Do you give a credence to the idea that a bye might sap a team of their
> momentum and actually do them a disservice?

It might in certain cases, but I think more often than not it will help,
especially because the bye team can line up their rotation while the WC teams
use their top starters in the first round.
 >> Stay informed about: Why? 

> thisplanetsux wrote:
> > The same could be argued for one team sweeping and having a long
> > layoff while the other stays sharp in playing a 7-game series, but
> > there's nothing you can do about that when that happens
>
> It's possible to fluidly schedule, so two parallel series end about
> the same time (within one day of each other). That is, if one series
> goes to a 2-0 lead, while the other is split 1-1 after 2 games, the
> teams in the 2-0 series automatically sit a day while the deadlocked
> teams play a game to get one of them to two victories. Then repeat at
> each stage. It brings up some logistical problems, but would at least
> get rid of the issue of teams sitting around for 4 or 5 day
> stretches, going stale.

Possible, but some consideration has to be given to the fans who go to
the games and plan their time around the published schedules, too.
Relatively few people have the absolute flexibility to keep an entire
week or two open for baseball games.
 >> Stay informed about: Why?