|
Post by nyjyrk on Jul 16, 2006 18:40:24 GMT -5
Is the hype of the wild card worth the trouble of not putting the best teams in the playoffs? As it stands right now, the White Sox have a 3 game lead on the Yankees for the wild card. If you analize the stats, it is largely due to the Sox beating up on the AL Central (21 - 13 v ALC). The unbalanced schedule makes it so teams do not play the same schedule as the rest of the league, as in years passed. It is an atrocity to have the Wild Card AND an unbalanced schedule to determine playoffs. One without the other would be acceptable, but together they make for an uneven playing field. I'm not saying this because I think the Yankees are getting an unfair shake, but as a baseball purist. (I think the Yanks will win the division anyhow) Is it fair then that the White Sox get a playoff spot over the Red Sox if the get to beat up on the Royals more games than the Red Sox do? I say add two more teams, split to 4 divisions per league, and have only division winners make the playoffs. As I've said before, how can you win a Championship if you can't even win your division?
|
|
rzobb
Little Leaguer
Posts: 55
|
Post by rzobb on Jul 16, 2006 19:54:51 GMT -5
you know as well as i the only reason is more money.with that being said it does keep intrest up. also you can't controll how the teams will play year to year. who knows maybe the west will be saying the same thing about the A.L east next year.
|
|
|
Post by nyjyrk on Jul 16, 2006 20:01:05 GMT -5
Which I think is wrong. As Harold Reynolds said when he was asked about the uneven schedule, all that he cared about as a player was that the other guys played the same people they did.
|
|
|
Post by jonorose on Jul 18, 2006 7:29:23 GMT -5
Personally I think its a shame that a team can go through a season with the best record in the league, and can then be knocked out in a short series. Why have such a long season if it can all get blown to smithereens in a couple of bad games.
I say do away with the divisions all together, then have the 2nd and 3rd team play eachother off in a best of 5 series to see who plays the top team in the LCS (the top team can play 3-4 exhibition games against non playoff teams to stay sharp).
The last thing I would like to see is to add more teams, the talent has been watered down enough.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 18, 2006 11:59:07 GMT -5
Is the hype of the wild card worth the trouble of not putting the best teams in the playoffs? As it stands right now, the White Sox have a 3 game lead on the Yankees for the wild card. If you analize the stats, it is largely due to the Sox beating up on the AL Central (21 - 13 v ALC). The unbalanced schedule makes it so teams do not play the same schedule as the rest of the league, as in years passed. It is an atrocity to have the Wild Card AND an unbalanced schedule to determine playoffs. One without the other would be acceptable, but together they make for an uneven playing field. I'm not saying this because I think the Yankees are getting an unfair shake, but as a baseball purist. (I think the Yanks will win the division anyhow) Is it fair then that the White Sox get a playoff spot over the Red Sox if the get to beat up on the Royals more games than the Red Sox do? I say add two more teams, split to 4 divisions per league, and have only division winners make the playoffs. As I've said before, how can you win a Championship if you can't even win your division? Just to offer another arguement, without having read any other comments (please excuse if others have had the same thought) - if ALL teams were given the same spending capital as the Yankees, then the playing field would be balanced...and the Expos would still be in Montreal. I agree for the most part with your arguement, jim, but find it's mostly fans rooting for the AL East - based teams that will be particularly vocal when another division posts better records...used to be that way in the NL East, before the wildcard. No solutions to offer at the moment...
|
|
|
Post by nyjyrk on Jul 18, 2006 23:05:29 GMT -5
It's a double edged sword when you go that route. As witnessed by teams like KC, the owners have been pocketing the extra money recieved through the luxury tax. It's not just that Steinbrenner has the money, it's that he puts the money back into his team.He puts a marketalbe team on the field, therefore gets a better TV deal. The Blue Jays have a bigger stadium, and if they'd sell it out like they did in the early 90s, they'd have more than enough to compete. Don't blame the Yankees because your owner won't crack open the wallet, or the fans won't show up to the games. The Expos falied because they averaged less than 10K per game. Blame the fans who didn't buy tickets.
|
|
|
Post by jonorose on Jul 19, 2006 9:46:43 GMT -5
The argument for limiting the payroll I feel is a little moot when you have teams like Oakland and Minnesotta who are consistently competitive, despite their lower payroll. And they have been winning their division, not squeaking in on the wild card ticket.
|
|