Printable View
In Major League Baseball, if a team wins its division with a record of, say, 86-76, and said team faces the Wild Card team in the first round of the playoffs, if the Wild Card team has a better record, say 92-72, the division winner still gets home field advantage, correct?
Yes
Yes.
Ok, that's what I thought. Thanks :).
Wait, winning the division gets you automatic home field advantage over a wild card winner? That's kinda lame...
Yeah. Because two teams from the same division can't face off in the divisional round of the playoffs. Which is why it was Red Sox - Angels and Rays - White Sox.
If teams from the same division could play each other in the LDS the Angels would have gotten the White Sox, and the Red Sox and Tampa would have played each other. But because of that rule that's not how it worked out.
The Sox not playing the Rays had nothing to do with this rule. The Angels had the best record in the AL, not Tampa, so they got the WC team, Boston.
The better example was in the NL, where the Cubs had the best record, and would normally have gotten the WC as its div series opponent. But since the Wild Card was Milwaukee... in the same division as the Cubs, then the Cubs instead got the other division winner with the worst record... the Dodgers.
Wait, I'm confused...
Say Team A (104 wins- Division winner) faces Team B (105 wins- Wild Card winner) in the Division Series- Team A will get home field advantage?
yes wild card NEVER gets the home field. and justly so... if they won the division they would get in. if it was still 2 leagues they wouldnt have gotten in so they are lucky as it is
That sucks though.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Say there's a division winner with 75 wins and a wild card with 104 wins... the division winner deserves home field advantage?
yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
agreed...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
You have to be better than the teams in your division... thats the rules...
If its a HR winning contest and I hit 25 a year for 10 years and you hit 50 for 5 years... who do you want on your team??? (asuming you have no other real power threats)
Its not a great argumant but it makes sense in my head... (then again world peace does to :p)
Okay, let's put it this wayQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Division A consists of
Detroit
Baltimore
Washington
Seattle
San Diego
Detroit wins with 74 wins
Division B consists of
Anaheim
Boston
Chicago (NL)
Philadelphia
Anaheim wins with 100 wins, but Chicago with 97 wins gets the wild card. Chicago's not a better team then Detroit?
Chicago wouldn't play Detroit most likely. They would play the winner of a team that won the third division considering the wild card requires four teams. Unless they meet in the LCS...
But your right Chicago is a better team but division titles mean more then the wild card. It's just the rules. You play better then the other teams in your division, that's how it goes.
If something as outrageous as your example occurs though I'm sure people will start talking about changing it...but I doubt any team will ever win a division with a 74 win season...
It's not about whose the better team, its about whose the best in their division. At least with the way the rules are now.
A team win 97 wins should have no problem destroying a team with 74 wins homefield or not anyways.
Someone in the NL West will probably do it next year... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
And if the 1994 season had played out, then the Rangers might've won with like 78 wins.
Cardinals in 2006 for example. baybe the teams in the division just beat the crap out of each other and thats why records are so crummy.
And also... the idea is not to shoot to get the division... its to get the woldcard... there was even talk of giving the team with the wildcard only 1 home game just to force teams to REALLY push for the division. I am not for or against the that idea...
However I am STRONGLY opposed to giving a WC team a home field advantage.
we've been saying that for 2 years... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
unless they are the "Braves" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
:p even then mr smarty pants :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
My only thought on that then is that it does not give an advantage to the best team if they dont play the wild card winner... you would have to make it so ALWAYS the best team got the 4 home games
Why so much hate for the Wild Card teams here?
I think the Wild Card team being penalized makes sense, in an ideal structure, where all three divisions were equal and balanced. But they aren't. Some have 6 teams, some have 4. Some are big-budget, others microscopic. So it's an ideal solution, that works in theory...and may be the best thing going.
The problem is when a team owns its division, and has 100 wins...but is in a very weak division, say a 4-team division, with one bad team, one sub-par team with bad GMing, and one low-cost team that sells off their big pieces and gives up on the season (::cough:: AL West ::cough::). It's unfair, if the wid card comes out of a tougher division, with a few less wins.
Or even MORE wins, via wildcard, in a tougher division. That is truly a shame. Times like those, I don't know if the rules make sense; but the way they currently are, every division winner is first-class, and wild card squeezes in coach. Perhaps when divisions are evenly aligned it will be more fair.
Looking at the wildcard WS wins, and appearances, it doesn't appear to set them back all that much, however.
What is far, far more unfair than the WC "mistreatment", is the division alignment, as AOW alluded to. In most divisions, a team has to compete against 4 opponents for the division crown. Yet, in the AL West, any team has to compete against just 3 opponents. Further, in the NL Central, you would have to compete against 5 other teams. Clearly, the deck is stacked against all NL Central teams, and the AL West is somewhat of a joke. This is extremely unfair, and there is really no good reason for it.
If the wild card winner were 25 games better than the division winner (like some people are saying) than the Wild Card winner should win the series even if they don't have home field.
Exactly. It might still be "unfair" that they don't get home field, but a team that much better than the division winner should easily win the series, and if they don't, the lack of home field would probably be the last reason they lost it.Quote:
Originally Posted by skudplayr
Good point. The home field advantage is smaller in MLB than in the other major sports 9football, basketball), much smaller, historically. If one team is so much better, they should win the series anyway.
WC appearances in WS
2007 COL
2006 DET
2005 HOU
2004 BOS
2003 FLA
2002 ANA + SFG
2001 none
2000 NYM
Bold indicates WS Champ
It DEFINATLY has not hurt them as it is now
It's pretty incredible that each of the last 6 World Series, and all but one this decade, featured a Wild Card team.
They should really realign to 4 divisions in each league, anyway...
and what add 2 more teams???
sure!
:)
Ug no. where portland and Indy... san antonio... andother Texas city... ANOTHER team a california???
NO
lol
They don't actually have to expand... although, I do think they should.
but with 30 teams they would have to
unless you mean each league having an 8 team and a 7 team division or
8x8 and 7x7
If they went to 8 divisions they would have to expand...surely no one thinks a 3 team division is a good idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
mlb.com is reading my posts???