format change?

[K_GUN]

so...who here thinks a 5 game format is just too unreal for a 162 game season?!

(im a red sox fan---yes my team SHOULD be bumped out)

but look ate the past:

only 1 team with the best reg season record won the WS since 91.......98 yanks


5 game formats are not a true measure of he better team

[GCrusher23]

Re: format change?

I agree, it's a 162 game season, yet all a team needs is three wins to advance. That just doesn't seem fair. The Giants, Red Sox, and Braves dominated all year, and now all three could be eliminated before the fifth game.

[GCrusher23]

Re: format change?

I agree, it's a 162 game season, yet all a team needs is three wins to advance. That just doesn't seem fair. The Giants, Red Sox, and Braves dominated all year, and now all three could be eliminated before the fifth game.

[GCrusher23]

Re: format change?

I agree, it's a 162 game season, yet all a team needs is three wins to advance. That just doesn't seem fair. The Giants, Red Sox, and Braves dominated all year, and now all three could be eliminated before the fifth game.

[ChicagoNVA]

Re: format change?

If you are the better team.. you should win, even in a 5 games series..

There are no slouch teams that make the playoffs in baseball... it's not as easy as the NHL or NBA to make it to the postseason.

They might dominate during the season, but there are no Tigers or Devil Rays in the playoffs.

Just my take.

[ChicagoNVA]

Re: format change?

If you are the better team.. you should win, even in a 5 games series..

There are no slouch teams that make the playoffs in baseball... it's not as easy as the NHL or NBA to make it to the postseason.

They might dominate during the season, but there are no Tigers or Devil Rays in the playoffs.

Just my take.

[ChicagoNVA]

Re: format change?

If you are the better team.. you should win, even in a 5 games series..

There are no slouch teams that make the playoffs in baseball... it's not as easy as the NHL or NBA to make it to the postseason.

They might dominate during the season, but there are no Tigers or Devil Rays in the playoffs.

Just my take.

[dce1228]

Re: format change?

Yeah, this is pretty lame, after the year the Giants had. They had a bad few games and now they're done. I like two ideas. One I made up.

1) The wild card team needs to win 4 games in the NLDS. The divisional winner facing that team only needs to win 3.

2) The wild card winner and the first runner-up play a one game playoff to determine who plays in the Division Series. In this case it would be the Phillies and Marlins. What this does is make the potential wild-card team use their best starter before the Division Series AND takes away that teams ability to rest before the playoffs begin. I know this idea has been tossed around by the Players Association.

Either way, I think there needs to be a distinct advantage given to those teams that win their division.

[dce1228]

Re: format change?

Yeah, this is pretty lame, after the year the Giants had. They had a bad few games and now they're done. I like two ideas. One I made up.

1) The wild card team needs to win 4 games in the NLDS. The divisional winner facing that team only needs to win 3.

2) The wild card winner and the first runner-up play a one game playoff to determine who plays in the Division Series. In this case it would be the Phillies and Marlins. What this does is make the potential wild-card team use their best starter before the Division Series AND takes away that teams ability to rest before the playoffs begin. I know this idea has been tossed around by the Players Association.

Either way, I think there needs to be a distinct advantage given to those teams that win their division.

[dce1228]

Re: format change?

Yeah, this is pretty lame, after the year the Giants had. They had a bad few games and now they're done. I like two ideas. One I made up.

1) The wild card team needs to win 4 games in the NLDS. The divisional winner facing that team only needs to win 3.

2) The wild card winner and the first runner-up play a one game playoff to determine who plays in the Division Series. In this case it would be the Phillies and Marlins. What this does is make the potential wild-card team use their best starter before the Division Series AND takes away that teams ability to rest before the playoffs begin. I know this idea has been tossed around by the Players Association.

Either way, I think there needs to be a distinct advantage given to those teams that win their division.

[BaldEaglePride]

Re: format change?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
dce1228 said:
Yeah, this is pretty lame, after the year the Giants had. They had a bad few games and now they're done. I like two ideas. One I made up.

1) The wild card team needs to win 4 games in the NLDS. The divisional winner facing that team only needs to win 3.

2) The wild card winner and the first runner-up play a one game playoff to determine who plays in the Division Series. In this case it would be the Phillies and Marlins. What this does is make the potential wild-card team use their best starter before the Division Series AND takes away that teams ability to rest before the playoffs begin. I know this idea has been tossed around by the Players Association.

Either way, I think there needs to be a distinct advantage given to those teams that win their division.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm sorry. While creative, I don't like either idea. The regular season is played to determine which teams earn the right to play in the post season. The Giants, Braves, Cubs, and Marlins earned that right. Now it's a new season, and the objective is simple. Win more games than your opponent. If you don't/can't then you should be eliminated.

Perhaps a 5-game series is too short, but to force one team to have to win more games than their opponent? That doesn't work for me. The better team is the team that wins the most games in an "even" series, not the one that wins in a "handicapped" series.

As for the second option, as I said earlier, the regular season is played to determines who has earned the opportunity to play in the post season. The "runner-up" should not even factor in here. What if the runner-up won that "playoff"? Would they go to the post season? So one game determines the right to go as opposed to the record for the entire season? Doesn't make sense to me.

[BaldEaglePride]

Re: format change?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
dce1228 said:
Yeah, this is pretty lame, after the year the Giants had. They had a bad few games and now they're done. I like two ideas. One I made up.

1) The wild card team needs to win 4 games in the NLDS. The divisional winner facing that team only needs to win 3.

2) The wild card winner and the first runner-up play a one game playoff to determine who plays in the Division Series. In this case it would be the Phillies and Marlins. What this does is make the potential wild-card team use their best starter before the Division Series AND takes away that teams ability to rest before the playoffs begin. I know this idea has been tossed around by the Players Association.

Either way, I think there needs to be a distinct advantage given to those teams that win their division.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm sorry. While creative, I don't like either idea. The regular season is played to determine which teams earn the right to play in the post season. The Giants, Braves, Cubs, and Marlins earned that right. Now it's a new season, and the objective is simple. Win more games than your opponent. If you don't/can't then you should be eliminated.

Perhaps a 5-game series is too short, but to force one team to have to win more games than their opponent? That doesn't work for me. The better team is the team that wins the most games in an "even" series, not the one that wins in a "handicapped" series.

As for the second option, as I said earlier, the regular season is played to determines who has earned the opportunity to play in the post season. The "runner-up" should not even factor in here. What if the runner-up won that "playoff"? Would they go to the post season? So one game determines the right to go as opposed to the record for the entire season? Doesn't make sense to me.

[BaldEaglePride]

Re: format change?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
dce1228 said:
Yeah, this is pretty lame, after the year the Giants had. They had a bad few games and now they're done. I like two ideas. One I made up.

1) The wild card team needs to win 4 games in the NLDS. The divisional winner facing that team only needs to win 3.

2) The wild card winner and the first runner-up play a one game playoff to determine who plays in the Division Series. In this case it would be the Phillies and Marlins. What this does is make the potential wild-card team use their best starter before the Division Series AND takes away that teams ability to rest before the playoffs begin. I know this idea has been tossed around by the Players Association.

Either way, I think there needs to be a distinct advantage given to those teams that win their division.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm sorry. While creative, I don't like either idea. The regular season is played to determine which teams earn the right to play in the post season. The Giants, Braves, Cubs, and Marlins earned that right. Now it's a new season, and the objective is simple. Win more games than your opponent. If you don't/can't then you should be eliminated.

Perhaps a 5-game series is too short, but to force one team to have to win more games than their opponent? That doesn't work for me. The better team is the team that wins the most games in an "even" series, not the one that wins in a "handicapped" series.

As for the second option, as I said earlier, the regular season is played to determines who has earned the opportunity to play in the post season. The "runner-up" should not even factor in here. What if the runner-up won that "playoff"? Would they go to the post season? So one game determines the right to go as opposed to the record for the entire season? Doesn't make sense to me.

[BigRed]

Re: format change?

The thing is, baseball is meant to be played according to series'. Hence the concept of a starting rotation.

So, the idea of a team winning a post season series because they have two dominant pitchers (ala Arizona) as opposed to having a dominant staff. Now, even though 'Zona won the WS, the year they did it, they actually had pretty good performances out of the rest of the staff.

Anyway, I agree that a series should be at least seven games. This way the more complete team has the advantage.

Note: This next part is included because I know that Goaty has to have someting in my post to disagree with.

In my opinion, if the Cubs lose this series it should fall onto the shoulders of Dusty Baker for not guaranteeing that Mark Prior gets two starts in a five game series. He's the best pitcher in the National League right now, why limit him to one start?

[BigRed]

Re: format change?

The thing is, baseball is meant to be played according to series'. Hence the concept of a starting rotation.

So, the idea of a team winning a post season series because they have two dominant pitchers (ala Arizona) as opposed to having a dominant staff. Now, even though 'Zona won the WS, the year they did it, they actually had pretty good performances out of the rest of the staff.

Anyway, I agree that a series should be at least seven games. This way the more complete team has the advantage.

Note: This next part is included because I know that Goaty has to have someting in my post to disagree with.

In my opinion, if the Cubs lose this series it should fall onto the shoulders of Dusty Baker for not guaranteeing that Mark Prior gets two starts in a five game series. He's the best pitcher in the National League right now, why limit him to one start?