Like that (can't reply with quote), just watch..

Playoffs are absolutely a 100% lock. 6 with the Astros/Mets and 6 with the Pirates. Even if we go 6-6 the Nats would need to go 11-2 to tie. Is tie breaker head to head?

Rotinaj;1501083 wrote:Playoffs are absolutely a 100% lock. 6 with the Astros/Mets and 6 with the Pirates. Even if we go 6-6 the Nats would need to go 11-2 to tie. Is tie breaker head to head?

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130904&content_id=59527184&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb


Head to head is just usually used for whom gets home field.

If the reds and Nats would tie for the last WC they go to a one game playoff.

SportsAndLady;1501080 wrote:Like that (can't reply with quote), just watch..

It worked this time. Wouldn't work in the Browns thread though.

thavoice;1501117 wrote:http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130904&content_id=59527184&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb


Head to head is just usually used for whom gets home field.

If the reds and Nats would tie for the last WC they go to a one game playoff.

That's ridiculous. It won't come down to that, but a one game playoff to get into the one game playoff. Give me a break.

like_that;1501152 wrote:It worked this time. Wouldn't work in the Browns thread though.


That's ridiculous. It won't come down to that, but a one game playoff to get into the one game playoff. Give me a break.

Do you suggest a 3 game playoff to get into the one game playoff???? Or Head to head?


MLB wont say it but I bet one of the reasons they added the extra team and is making the 2 WC teams play a 1 game playoff is give the edge to division winners. I dont think they liked having WC teams get hot just at the right time and win it all over teams who were very good all season. By doing a 1 game playoff in the WC and fighting for the WC almost ensures that a teams number one has to throw in that one game or in one of the very last couple of games, and then making him only available for one game in the divisino round for ht emost part.

Do the Cards hold the head to head advantage over the Pirates like they do over the Reds? And how would that come into play in the event all 3 tied for the division? Would they give one of the three a bye, then the winner play the other on Tuesday to determine the division winner, then the two losers play in the wild card game on Wed?

Or better yet, what if the runner up in another division finished their 162 at the same record as the three NL central teams that tied. Would they not count the games between the 3 NL tied after 162 games teams to determine the division winner, and then have a big problem from there picking the 2 of the 3 left to play in the wildcard game?

like_that;1501072 wrote:Never seen a group of fans so down on their team when they essentially have a playoff spot locked up. The playoffs are a crapshoot, anything can happen as long as you get there.

Dusty's record of colossal chokes in the playoffs says otherwise.

thavoice;1501165 wrote:Do you suggest a 3 game playoff to get into the one game playoff???? Or Head to head?


MLB wont say it but I bet one of the reasons they added the extra team and is making the 2 WC teams play a 1 game playoff is give the edge to division winners. I dont think they liked having WC teams get hot just at the right time and win it all over teams who were very good all season. By doing a 1 game playoff in the WC and fighting for the WC almost ensures that a teams number one has to throw in that one game or in one of the very last couple of games, and then making him only available for one game in the divisino round for ht emost part.

head to head. They played enough games against each other to use that as a reasonable tie breaker. Also, that could be a reason, however I just think the whole idea of having divisions is dumb if they are going to allow 5 teams from each league. Take the top 5 teams from each league, no divisions. I think it is ridiculous a team could have the 2nd best record in the league and their reward is they play a 1 game wildcard playoff.

Ironman92;1501636 wrote:Dusty's record of colossal chokes in the playoffs says otherwise.

#blamebartman

mhs95_06;1501622 wrote:Do the Cards hold the head to head advantage over the Pirates like they do over the Reds? And how would that come into play in the event all 3 tied for the division? Would they give one of the three a bye, then the winner play the other on Tuesday to determine the division winner, then the two losers play in the wild card game on Wed?

Or better yet, what if the runner up in another division finished their 162 at the same record as the three NL central teams that tied. Would they not count the games between the 3 NL tied after 162 games teams to determine the division winner, and then have a big problem from there picking the 2 of the 3 left to play in the wildcard game?

No. Pirates 10-8, I believe. The other questions, I have no clue.

like_that;1501645 wrote:head to head. They played enough games against each other to use that as a reasonable tie breaker. Also, that could be a reason, however I just think the whole idea of having divisions is dumb if they are going to allow 5 teams from each league. Take the top 5 teams from each league, no divisions. I think it is ridiculous a team could have the 2nd best record in the league and their reward is they play a 1 game wildcard playoff.



#blamebartman

You know there was talk of that this offseason of revamping everying.

Make it pretty much just NL and AL. NL teams play NL teams the same amount of times, and then you still have some IL play. I think that is teh most fair way of determining whom should make the postseason.

I think they then could then matchup the the IL play with how you finished the year prior plus the rivalries