~2021 MLB Thread~

[FearlessF]

is HFA still determined by the all-star game?

[betarhoalphadelta]

But, yeah, if you're not a fan at all, your opinion on how they do it is somewhat irrelevant to me. 

Sorry, I shall excuse myself then... I watched a bit of a Dodgers playoff game and then a good amount of WS game 6. That was my extent of baseball this season. 

[longhorn320]

is HFA still determined by the all-star game?

no they changed that
I for one was sorry they changed it
it gave some real incentive to that game which I really liked

[Cincydawg]

is HFA still determined by the all-star game?

In this case, it was determined by division winner being precedent over a WC  team.

[FearlessF]

In this case, it was determined by division winner being precedent over a WC  team.

seems reasonable
that would have been my choice

[OrangeAfroMan]

What the Giants did this year was extraordinary.  Incomprehensible.  And it will be forgotten.  The had 2 big-bad talented teams projected to dominate their division.  A couple of month into the season, they were sure to fall back any day.  At the AS break, kudos to them, but they can't possibly keep this up.  Even going into September, the metrics had the Dodgers winning the West. 
But they kept on winning.  And winning.  And winning.
Their story is a rag-tag team of whoevers and over-the-hill guys, with some anonymous pitchers, won 107 games!!!  And it didn't matter. 

I guess I'd like the MLB playoffs to be like the college basketball conference tournament.  The real conference champs are the regular season champs....the conf tourney is just for someone to get hot and play their way into March Madness. 

I guess I care too much about the champion actually possibly being the best team. 
Look at MLB this year:
107 wins - Giants
106 - Dodgers
100 - Rays
95 - Astros, Brewers
93 - White Sox
92 - Red Sox, Yankees
91 - Blue Jays
90 - Mariners, Cardinals
88 - Braves
.
If your sport is going to have a long season, that's good.  It's a large sample size.  The best team has ample opportunity to show itself as such and let the statistical noise settle down.
Most people would say the Dodgers are the best team.  Great, the 106 wins suggest yeah, they're up there.  The Giants won 107, so regardless of how they look on paper, they have a great claim.  The Rays?  Sure.  Maybe.  The Astros are a known commodity and are great, and the Brewers had a 3-headed monster of starting pitchers.  All great teams.  Even the White Sox are young up-and-comers.  The Red Sox and Yankees battled it out for the East before fading.  The Blue Jays probably have the best young talent in their trio of position players. 

They're in the conversation.....or maybe the conversation ends after the Rays or the White Sox.  It doesn't matter. 
But I guess what I'm saying is don't call it a champion when it's shown to be the 12th-best team after 162 games.  Sabermatricians know the postseason is a coin flip.  That's why Billy Beane's Moneyball teams never won it all and why this year's INCREDIBLE Giants' season didn't, either. 

Don't call the 12th-best team champions.  Have your playoff.  Get your money.  But call them something else.  
And this isn't anti-Braves, I like the Braves.  You can call them Team-A if you want.  
Team A won 88 games (12th most) in a shitty division.  Look at the list above:  only the White Sox had no other strong teams to compete with.  

Baseball's postseason started out making sense.  But over the years, it's evolved into a convoluted money-grab.  You guys are telling me, "yup, deal with it."  And I get it, and it is what it is, but it's not what it says it is.  The Braves aren't the champions of anything.  They're the beneficiaries of a random-chance contest.  Their coin came up heads the most often for a 16-game stretch.  

Cool.
Let's call them the 2021 MLB Beneficiaries!  At least is more honest than champions.

[longhorn320]

to say something over and over does not make it so

we understand your point OAM we dont agree with it

the rules of determining a baseball champion have been in place for over 100 years

and baseball fans embrace it

as has been pointed out there is no other pro team sport that doesnt have playoffs 

going into the playoffs season records do play a part in determining HFA

so your opinion is noted and disagreed with

perhaps you could start watching chess tournaments where the record does determine

the overall champion and leave baseball to us fans

[Brutus Buckeye]

Sounds like Fro hates diversity and inclusiveness. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

the rules of determining a baseball champion have been in place for over 100 years

This sentence doesn't make any sense, having just read what I put.

The rules of determining a baseball champion made sense until expansion in 1969.  Having 2 divisions in each league weakened the "champion" potential for the WS winner.  You could have a very strong division winner and a much less strong division winner upset them in a series.  Strike one.

The rules of determining a baseball champion continued not making sense with the wild card in 1994.  Born of expansion and 3 divisions, NOT because it was just a good idea in of itself, it allowed for a non-division winner to become the "champion."  Strike two.

The rules of determining a baseball champion were made worse by interleague play in 1997.  Now, instead of two separate leagues who would produce a champion to face off in the WS, teams in each league would play each other.  Already bad enough, a side-effect was scheduling inequality.  Strike three.

YER OUT!!!

[OrangeAfroMan]

Sounds like Fro hates diversity and inclusiveness.

Of course, I've always said sports championships should be exclusive.  

[longhorn320]

This sentence doesn't make any sense, having just read what I put.

The rules of determining a baseball champion made sense until expansion in 1969.  Having 2 divisions in each league weakened the "champion" potential for the WS winner.  You could have a very strong division winner and a much less strong division winner upset them in a series.  Strike one.

The rules of determining a baseball champion continued not making sense with the wild card in 1994.  Born of expansion and 3 divisions, NOT because it was just a good idea in of itself, it allowed for a non-division winner to become the "champion."  Strike two.

The rules of determining a baseball champion were made worse by interleague play in 1997.  Now, instead of two separate leagues who would produce a champion to face off in the WS, teams in each league would play each other.  Already bad enough, a side-effect was scheduling inequality.  Strike three.

YER OUT!!!

and again repeating your position over and over just is a waste of time

it makes no difference how many teams or division are involved

to say that it does is what does not make sense

the winner of each division plus WC teams is still well within an effective playoff program

the wildcard teams play off and then meet the highest seated division winner who will have HFA

there is nothing wrong with that system

feel free to keep repeating your position over and over Ill let you have the last say

[Brutus Buckeye]

Next Fro will howl that we need to bring back the Negro League.

[Cincydawg]

Everyone is welcome to dislike how leagues do this.  I don't like the NBA playoffs, but then I don't like the NBA, but their inclusiveness to me is over the top.  The baseball arrangement is OK with me, I think it's on the edge, but it's OK.

In CFB, I'd probably favor a six team scheme over anything, slightly ahead of current four, and better than eight, but that's just me.  It's a compromise between allowing the best team to win and having a playoff champion.  I'd note the Braves were winning a lot after Aug. 6 and the trades they made, they really were a different team late.

But we each have our preferences, I just don't go on and on about my own.

[ELA]

Everyone is welcome to dislike how leagues do this.  I don't like the NBA playoffs, but then I don't like the NBA, but their inclusiveness to me is over the top.  The baseball arrangement is OK with me, I think it's on the edge, but it's OK.

The only reason I'm ok with the NBA, is that there is no American sport where the better team more regularly advances.  It gives middling teams something to play for, but they won't actually do anything with it.  Even in going from 16 to 20 with the play in games, I don't care, because it makes more teams relevant, but unlike the other three sports, those fringe playoff teams won't be a factor

The NHL is comparable, but due to more flukiness, that is more cringe worthy to me.  Although in fairness to the NHL, they've had a 16 team playoff since there were 20 teams, and in going to 32 teams, they've never expanded.

I saw a proposal years ago, that I really liked, with a ladder system to get to the playoffs.  You would have to figure out the scheduling for the non-playoff games, but essentially after Labor Day the bottom two teams in each league face off in a best of 3, hosted by the team with the better record.  The winner moves up to play #13, the loser is done.  The best thing I can think, is make the schedule, and then simply have the "playoff" teams play each other, with the teams they were supposed to play play each other.  Then instead of being done, the eliminated team can substitute in where needed, if needed for an advancing playoff team.