Red Mosquito

The two wildcard system is infinitely better than the old one wildcard system.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:What you're arguing is that the 1990s Braves were just as impressive as the 1990s Yankees, which is absurd.

Okay. So go back to winning the pennant and AL NL meeting in the world series. These one game playoffs are a total abomination.

The one game playoffs are absolutely a crap shoot and are a shitty way to determine a winner. But that fact is what actually makes them a great idea because it means winning your division has actual value over simply getting in with a wildcard.

You know, so the 100 win team has something to show over the 85 win team.

But for the odd year when a team wins a crap division and the wild card team has muchos mas victories.

But I'll give it to ya Chad, you tried.

cutuphalfdead wrote:The two wildcard system is infinitely better than the old one wildcard system.

Would you say it's twice as good if you had to put a finite definition on it?

Bammer wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:What you're arguing is that the 1990s Braves were just as impressive as the 1990s Yankees, which is absurd.

Okay. So go back to winning the pennant and AL NL meeting in the world series. These one game playoffs are a total abomination.

The one game playoffs are absolutely a crap shoot and are a shitty way to determine a winner. But that fact is what actually makes them a great idea because it means winning your division has actual value over simply getting in with a wildcard.

You know, so the 100 win team has something to show over the 85 win team.

But for the odd year when a team wins a crap division and the wild card team has muchos mas victories.

Except there really aren't any divisions weak enough to produce a crap bag division winner right now. There is no early 2000s NL West anymore.

Bammer wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The two wildcard system is infinitely better than the old one wildcard system.

Would you say it's twice as good if you had to put a finite definition on it?

It's significantly more than twice as good.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Bammer wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:What you're arguing is that the 1990s Braves were just as impressive as the 1990s Yankees, which is absurd.

Okay. So go back to winning the pennant and AL NL meeting in the world series. These one game playoffs are a total abomination.

The one game playoffs are absolutely a crap shoot and are a shitty way to determine a winner. But that fact is what actually makes them a great idea because it means winning your division has actual value over simply getting in with a wildcard.

You know, so the 100 win team has something to show over the 85 win team.

But for the odd year when a team wins a crap division and the wild card team has muchos mas victories.

Except there really aren't any divisions weak enough to produce a crap bag division winner right now. There is no early 2000s NL West anymore.

I bet Roger Goodell could come in and fix that right quick.

I like the double wildcard too, but my favorite ever day of baseball was the last day of the 2011 season, which wouldn't have happened with the new system. Ups and downs

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Bammer wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:What you're arguing is that the 1990s Braves were just as impressive as the 1990s Yankees, which is absurd.

Okay. So go back to winning the pennant and AL NL meeting in the world series. These one game playoffs are a total abomination.

The one game playoffs are absolutely a crap shoot and are a shitty way to determine a winner. But that fact is what actually makes them a great idea because it means winning your division has actual value over simply getting in with a wildcard.

You know, so the 100 win team has something to show over the 85 win team.

But for the odd year when a team wins a crap division and the wild card team has muchos mas victories.

Except there really aren't any divisions weak enough to produce a crap bag division winner right now. There is no early 2000s NL West anymore.

And there never will be again. Ever

Since the WCx2 was introduced in 2012, there hasn't been much of a spread between the 1st and 2nd WC teams, either, so it's not like the 5th-team-in is frequently a stinker. In the 5 seasons that have had 2 WC teams in each league, the NL averages 2.2 games between the 1st and 2nd WCs. What's even wilder is that the AL averages 0.6 games between the 1st and 2nd WC and that each league has had 2 ties since 2012. So even without the newer format, we would've had 4 play-ins over that span of time.

Simple Torture wrote:Since the WCx2 was introduced in 2012, there hasn't been much of a spread between the 1st and 2nd WC teams, either, so it's not like the 5th-team-in is frequently a stinker. In the 5 seasons that have had 2 WC teams in each league, the NL averages 2.2 games between the 1st and 2nd WCs. What's even wilder is that the AL averages 0.6 games between the 1st and 2nd WC and that each league has had 2 ties since 2012. So even without the newer format, we would've had 4 play-ins over that span of time.

I remember when everyone was arguing about whether the second WC was a good idea or not back when it was introduced. I also remember going back and looking at how many wins a team would have had to win if it had always been a two WC system since the introduction of the WC in the first place. You still would have had to hit the mid 80s in wins to realistically secure the second spot.

verb_to_trust wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Bammer wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:What you're arguing is that the 1990s Braves were just as impressive as the 1990s Yankees, which is absurd.

Okay. So go back to winning the pennant and AL NL meeting in the world series. These one game playoffs are a total abomination.

The one game playoffs are absolutely a crap shoot and are a shitty way to determine a winner. But that fact is what actually makes them a great idea because it means winning your division has actual value over simply getting in with a wildcard.

You know, so the 100 win team has something to show over the 85 win team.

But for the odd year when a team wins a crap division and the wild card team has muchos mas victories.

Except there really aren't any divisions weak enough to produce a crap bag division winner right now. There is no early 2000s NL West anymore.

And there never will be again. Ever

I'll take the year after year of extra excitement in September baseball even if it means every decade or two an 80 win team gets in.

The Argonaut wrote:I like the double wildcard too, but my favorite ever day of baseball was the last day of the 2011 season, which wouldn't have happened with the new system. Ups and downs

Yeah that was an incredible September (as painful as it is for me to say that) but under the single wildcard system finishes like that are few and far between. Under the new system no one rests until divisions are clinched and it stays exciting further down the stretch.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Since the WCx2 was introduced in 2012, there hasn't been much of a spread between the 1st and 2nd WC teams, either, so it's not like the 5th-team-in is frequently a stinker. In the 5 seasons that have had 2 WC teams in each league, the NL averages 2.2 games between the 1st and 2nd WCs. What's even wilder is that the AL averages 0.6 games between the 1st and 2nd WC and that each league has had 2 ties since 2012. So even without the newer format, we would've had 4 play-ins over that span of time.

I remember when everyone was arguing about whether the second WC was a good idea or not back when it was introduced. I also remember going back and looking at how many wins a team would have had to win if it had always been a two WC system since the introduction of the WC in the first place. You still would have had to hit the mid 80s in wins to realistically secure the second spot.

No AL team has ever won that 2nd spot with fewer than 86 wins. AL averages:

Average for 1st-place WC:89.8
Average for 2nd-place WC: 89.2
Average for all WCs: 89.5

Simple Torture wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Since the WCx2 was introduced in 2012, there hasn't been much of a spread between the 1st and 2nd WC teams, either, so it's not like the 5th-team-in is frequently a stinker. In the 5 seasons that have had 2 WC teams in each league, the NL averages 2.2 games between the 1st and 2nd WCs. What's even wilder is that the AL averages 0.6 games between the 1st and 2nd WC and that each league has had 2 ties since 2012. So even without the newer format, we would've had 4 play-ins over that span of time.

I remember when everyone was arguing about whether the second WC was a good idea or not back when it was introduced. I also remember going back and looking at how many wins a team would have had to win if it had always been a two WC system since the introduction of the WC in the first place. You still would have had to hit the mid 80s in wins to realistically secure the second spot.

No AL team has ever won that 2nd spot with fewer than 86 wins. AL averages:

Average for 1st-place WC:89.8
Average for 2nd-place WC: 89.2
Average for all WCs: 89.5

The data proves it, 2 wildcards are the way to go.

NL Averages, no WC teams with fewer than 87 wins in the past 5 seasons (obviously, higher averages than AL due to the ridiculous NL Central last year):

1st WC: 92.2
2nd WC: 90
All WC: 91.1

What would everyone think about chopping down the regular season and expanding the playoffs?

Regardless, the 2 WC is cool because those last couple weeks kinda feel like playoffs.

Bammer wrote:What would everyone think about chopping down the regular season and expanding the playoffs?

Regardless, the 2 WC is cool because those last couple weeks kinda feel like playoffs.

I don't like it. I presume you'd expand it by turning the wc into a best of three, which would mean division winners would have to wait even longer between the end of their season and the start of the divisional series. You need at least 150 games in the season, so it's not like it would even be that shorter.

I'd like some more context for this data, but I guess it's a pre-season projection that tried to predict win totals using projected WAR:

The two Wild Card format is terrible. If this season was played under the old format, the Jays/Orioles and Giants/Mets would have played a single tie-breaker game to determine who gets the Wild Card. Instead, we have to watch this garbage one-game playoff scenario, which is obviously infinitely worse.

I don't like the one game play in. Should be a best of 3. Give the division winners a chance to rest.