Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 12:52:04 GMT -5
But 4 of the top 5 teams in the entire league still have to battle it out vs each other rather than playing lower seeds... that was the point of my message that you quoted. I think a team who finishes 48.5 games above another team (that's SIGNIFICANTLY better) deserves to get a better 1st round playoff matchup... I don't really think that's a crazy opinion haha. Well everyone apparently has their side picked. Put it up for vote and if it passes im good with it. I really don't like either option to be honest, so if i had to pick, I'm voting no. Full disclosure. If you don't mind me asking, why is it that you prefer the playoffs be separated by league and have 2 wild cards from each league? Is it solely because that's how the rules are now? You don't have to give me your reasons, but I'm just having a super difficult time understanding how a slight change in the rules that I've suggested makes things less fair, or doesn't make the league better as a whole |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 14:38:26 GMT -5
I don't think we should be crossing divisions with wild cards if we're letting a team that is severely under 500 into the playoffs. That has been my position the whole time. You all have used 'unlucky' multiple times. If division winners are automatically in, why was it reseeded to #4 in the NL? Shouldnt they have been #2? I mean, they're an automatic entry. Luck plays into a lot of things. Injuries, matchups, etc. You all are selling your version. I'm not sold. SF was decimated by injuries this year and he's in the weak NL. I'm trying to use examples to explain variances in cross league records. I don't think the gap is necessarily as wide based on roster strength going into 2018, especially if NYY is moving to the NL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 14:39:52 GMT -5
I don't think we should be crossing divisions with wild cards if we're letting a team that is severely under 500 into the playoffs. That has been my position the whole time. You all have used 'unlucky' multiple times. If division winners are automatically in, why was it reseeded to #4 in the NL? Shouldnt they have been #2? I mean, they're an automatic entry. Luck plays into a lot of things. Injuries, matchups, etc. You all are selling your version. I'm not sold. SF was decimated by injuries this year and he's in the weak NL. I'm trying to use examples to explain variances in cross league records. I don't think the gap is necessarily as wide based on roster strength going into 2018, especially if NYY is moving to the NL. Sorry that's all over the place. Work is distracting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 15:08:40 GMT -5
I don't think we should be crossing divisions with wild cards if we're letting a team that is severely under 500 into the playoffs. That has been my position the whole time. You all have used 'unlucky' multiple times. If division winners are automatically in, why was it reseeded to #4 in the NL? Shouldnt they have been #2? I mean, they're an automatic entry. Luck plays into a lot of things. Injuries, matchups, etc. You all are selling your version. I'm not sold. SF was decimated by injuries this year and he's in the weak NL. I'm trying to use examples to explain variances in cross league records. I don't think the gap is necessarily as wide based on roster strength going into 2018, especially if NYY is moving to the NL. Thanks for sharing your thoughts man - truly appreciate it. Definitely didn't mean to call you out or anything - just trying to understand the reasoning. I just want to what we can to ensure the best teams get into the playoffs, and get rewarded for having great seasons (While still maintaining divisions that mean something cause it's fun to fight for a division title). I think changing the wild cards to the best 4 teams regardless of league (and subsequently getting rid of the separation between AL and NL in the playoffs) would accomplish without rocking the boat at all. But I totally get people have different opinions As for the seeding, I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean, but if you meant that Mets would have the 4th best seed because he won his division, I wasn't saying that. I was suggesting division winners get a place in playoffs, but they don't get top 4 seeds. In the current system, the seeds are done by best record, not if you won your division. Not sure if that's what you meant, but just offering an explanation if that is what you were saying. Again, I appreciate the thoughts and input. I think everyone who has wanted to chime in has done so and it's best to just do a vote now. I'll set up the vote this weekend (might not be until Monday) as I'm heading out of the office (beer time in this shockingly cool weather!). I'll let everyone know when the poll has been posted. |
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM (Kenji) on Sept 8, 2017 16:26:58 GMT -5
By the way, I'm not just saying that the part where 2 wild card teams have to come from each league is a bad rule or unfair. Another HUGE aspect to it is how unbalanced the playoffs are in each league since they're separated by league (until the championship). This year, we have 4 of the best 5 teams in the entire 20 team fantasy league in the AL... I'd have to go back to look, but I believe it was the same way last season as well. It makes way more sense to me to have the playoffs merged between leagues so that being a good team in the regular season actually means something (e.g. you get to play a lower seed rather than being stuck in a super stacked AL). Right now, 4 of the best 5 teams in the entire league are rewarded by having to battle it out against each other rather than getting to play a lower seeded team. And before someone says there will be ebb and flows, that doesn't make merging the playoffs (e.g. AL teams can play NL teams in first couple rounds) less fair - it's still a WAY more fair way to determine a champion. Seattle still misses the playoffs under the proposal of cross league wild cards. Just so thats out there once you guys put this up for a vote. Yep. I know. I still like the idea of having the 4 better teams going into the WC instead of top 2 from each league. I'm not voting for this just because "Oh I could have got into the playoffs" I think about more than just the outcome of the past. |
|
|
|
Post by RaysGM (Paul) on Sept 8, 2017 17:26:47 GMT -5
Another viewpoint......Everyone is saying the AL is better than the NL, and the NL East unfortunately was a weak division this year. What would be the incentive for any NL team who doesn't win it's division if all four WCs appear to be coming from the AL? Any NL team could look at the standings, see they can't catch the top 4 AL teams who are not division winners, and just say "f*ck it, I'll just coast and get a better pick in the next draft". Keeping it as is gives them a shot to make the playoffs. Again, going to the MLB, there are teams with better records than others who don't make the playoffs. I still don't see a problem with the way it is. There's only one team, TEX, who would have made the playoffs as a WC instead of the Dodgers. Is that a reason to change? To me, if you're complaining about being unfair, a division winner knocking out a team with a much better record is more unfair. But, that is not going to be changed (thank goodness!). To me it's part of baseball, but I guess maybe I'm more old school.
|
|
|
|
Post by GiantsGM (Adam) on Sept 9, 2017 1:43:07 GMT -5
I think the thought is a good one, but if we want to keep divisions, we are really talking about one team swapping out for one team.. As much as it sucks to be the team that has a better record than a playoff team while still not making the playoffs, its just...sports.
I think we need to be cautious in making long term changes based on short term results. For example, maybe I'm biased, but I think at the start of the year, I had one of the best 3 or 4 teams, and expected to compete for a championship. But things happened, injuries, underperforming, poor managing by me, etc. and all of a sudden, i decided to blow my team up and dove into the division cellar. If i was more in the win range that I was last year, around 170-180, we'd have colorado, me, arizona, and the mets in the playoffs for the NL. that's reasonable.
It seems to me if we make changes based on this type of criteria (something such as one or two teams, not a "half the playoff teams" type of situation"), a manager could make a legitimate claim to reshuffle a team or two every year that this kind of thing happens, and I think that just produces more problems than necessary.
I'm all for whatever the league decides, and appreciate the large amount of input everyone is putting into this discussion. I would have commented sooner but most of my viewpoints have been expressed.
I personally think at most we change the 4 WC slots to be 1 NL mandatory, 1 AL mandatory, and the remaining 2 to the best remaining records. I think any more than that would be an overcorrection. And I think if we move a team from the NL to the AL, and make a rule change, in a year or two, we'll be right back here trying to reshuffle the divisions again (imo).
|
|
