• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 MLB Season Thread -- Rays v. Dodgers -- Small Payroll v. Large Payroll

mersk862 said:
Ok, so a little more clarity on the playoffs.

First and second place teams in each division make the playoffs, plus the two best teams after that. None of the bullshit of picking teams, etc...It'll be 1v8, 2v7, etc. Higher seed gets to host all three games.

That's slightly better.
Click to expand...

No, it is trash. Sub .500 teams have no business being in the playoffs.
 
Stan Gable said:
No, it is trash. Sub .500 teams have no business being in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

It’s a 1 year money grab. Helps owners and players recoup some losses. I don’t want it to be permanent and don’t think it will be, but I’ve got no problem with it for one year. More baseball is better and some fluky things can happen in a 60 game sample.
 
DeacInVermont don't poke the woke police. Seniority carries a lot of weight with the ump union.
 
Stan Gable said:
No, it is trash. Sub .500 teams have no business being in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

With this format last year 1 out of 16 playoff teams would have been sub 0.500 (Rangers). I’m cool with expanding for one year given the small sample size problems we will likely see this season.
 
Not sure how forcing teams that clearly belong in the playoffs to play three-game series against teams that haven't proven that fixes a problem of small sample size
 
The "advantage" is gone without any fans as well. This also screws teams with aces and strong twos who will blow them in the first series. Then they will be opening a divisional round with the four and fifth starters.
 
Last edited:
wsc8521s said:
Not sure how forcing teams that clearly belong in the playoffs to play three-game series against teams that haven't proven that fixes a problem of small sample size
Click to expand...

Teams that “clearly belong in the playoffs” may not make the playoffs (pre-expanded version) in a 60 game season. There are scenarios where Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, etc don’t make playoffs under old format - their odds are reduced in 60 games v 162 games.
 
Nats don’t make make playoffs last year after 60 games. Too lazy to look it up, but I doubt they make it under 16 team version of playoffs after 60 games
 
Looked it up. On June 5 last year, Nats were 27-33. Don’t make playoffs in 16 team format. 12th in NL. Phillies, who finished 81-81, led NL East. Pirates, who ended up with 69 wins, had a better record than Nats
 
How do you manage to set up a microphone to make Morgan Freeman sound bad?
 
deac29 said:
Teams that “clearly belong in the playoffs” may not make the playoffs (pre-expanded version) in a 60 game season. There are scenarios where Dodgers, Yankees, Astros, etc don’t make playoffs under old format - their odds are reduced in 60 games v 162 games.
Click to expand...

In the wild card era last year's Nats and the 2003 Marlins are the only champs that would've missed the playoffs under a 60-game format. I'd say this is creating more randomness from the small-sample size that is the playoffs than what a 60-game regular season creates
 
Also, the Nats could start slow last year because they had time to get their shit together. If they were pressured to win X games to get into the playoffs in a 60-game format, no way of knowing they would've missed the playoffs.

162 games is an absurd amount. 60 games is still a lot
 
wsc8521s said:
Also, the Nats could start slow last year because they had time to get their shit together. If they were pressured to win X games to get into the playoffs in a 60-game format, no way of knowing they would've missed the playoffs.

162 games is an absurd amount. 60 games is still a lot
Click to expand...

Not one thing in this post is correct
 
Hartford would have similar lighting issues as Buffalo. They'd be playing a lot of day games, which isn't ideal for revenue. Geographically and facilities wise it's a good fit.
 
wsc8521s said:
Also, the Nats could start slow last year because they had time to get their shit together. If they were pressured to win X games to get into the playoffs in a 60-game format, no way of knowing they would've missed the playoffs.

162 games is an absurd amount. 60 games is still a lot
Click to expand...

I mean, what even is the suggestion here? That the Nationals didn’t care all that much about winning the first 60 games in 2019 because they knew they had 100 more to make the playoffs? They didn’t even win the NL East last year, and the first 1/3 of the season is a lot of why, of course they were trying to win the first 60.

It’s a much more reasonable approach is to assume that professional sports teams are trying to win every game they play in.
 
Absolutely needing to win and not needing to makes a big difference. If you don't believe that then that's insanely naive.

Regardless I'm not arguing against a 162 game schedule, which obviously isn't an option this year. It certainly helps prevent against randomness, no argument there. No comparison IMO between the randomness a 16-team playoff with a bunch of short series creates as opposed to that which is created by a 60-game regular season
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top