Baseball Inflobleg
OK, I’m officially an idiot now. Can someone please explain why the New York Yankees winning 95 games and losing 67, while the Bosox won 95 games and lost 67, translates into the Yanks winning the division? I know, there is an answer, but it’s pretty lame.
October 2nd, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Does ‘lame’ refers to using the head-to-head record as a tie-breaker rather than a playoff game?
If so, why is it a problem? Don’t most sports (NFL, NHL, NCAA football and b-ball, NBA) use head-to-head records as a tie-breaker?
FWIW, I think MLB uses this system because, depending on the number of teams tied in the standings, there might not be enough days to have teams face off before the start of the playoffs. For example, this year you would have to have Boston playing NY, then the winner playing the Angels (also 95-67) to determine home field advantage.
And, what do mean by ‘now’?
Sorry, couldn’t help myself….
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Yeah, I gotta disagree. This is the most sensible way to do it. If all that matters is seeding, it’s not worth doing an extra game. I bet the BoSox wouldn’t even want a playoff. All it does is increase the risk of injuries and limit your rotation options for the games that really count.
October 2nd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Yes.
It’s not necessarily a problem, it’s just stupid. If Teams A and B have equal records, the fact that Team A has beaten Team B slightly more often than vice-versa is offset by the fact that Team B has beaten Team C more often than Team A has.
Possibly, but so what? A stupid idea is a stupid idea, regardless of how widely it is replicated.
Home field advantage is a different beast; no one gets to claim to have “won” anything if the competition stops with that. Division titles do mean something, however, and the idea that the “losing” (really tying) team should have to forfeit the division title solely because it will win the Wild Card race anyway defies reason.
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:32 am
“Teams A and B have equal records, the fact that Team A has beaten Team B slightly more often than vice-versa is offset by the fact that Team B has beaten Team C more often than Team A has.”
Are you really asserting that head-to-head matchups are not the best way of breaking a tie while simultaneously asserting that the tie should be resolved with a head-to-head matchup?
For the rest of us, a season of head-to-head matchups are seen as more predictive than a one-off affair.
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:39 am
Well, in college football in the SEC, the ambiguity is resolved by there being “division co-winners,” with the winner of the tiebreaker (i.e. whoever won the head-to-head matchup) representing the division in the title game. Maybe MLB should change its terminology in a similar way.
Aside: if the Sox had not qualified for the wild card (but had the same record as the Yanks), would there have been a one-game playoff with the Yanks to determine the division winner?
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:27 am
Jody:
No, I’m saying that the best way to tell which team has the best record of the season is to extend the season long enough for one team or the other to come out on top. If baseball were allerging to tie-breaking games and absolutely, positively had to break a tie by retroactively changing the formula for counting games already played, I’d rather they at least adopt some other criterion that actually tells you something about who played better baseball. Maybe they could just add up all the runs each team scored throughout the season, subtract all the runs it allowed, and hand the division title over to whichever team had more left over. Or maybe they could come up with some more complex formula that takes runs, hits, errors, LOBs and other statistics into account. Or they could do what baseball always did before the wild card rule was introduced - and continues to do today when resolving a division tie that will end the season for the losing team - and extend the season by a game.
On the flip side, if you really think an extra post-season, head-to-head game is not a better way of predicter of the superior team, why have playoffs at all? Why not just hand the pennants over to Chicago and St. Louis right now, and then give the world series to whichever of those teams has beaten the other more often during the season (assuming they played each other during the season; if they didn’t that’s nothing a one-game “World” “Series” couldn’t fix).
Chris L.:
Yes. That’s why I find the current rule so maddening. The mentality is similar to socialism and affirmative action: it’s OK to steal X from the person who also has Y, even though it would not be OK to steal X from anyone else.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Baseball crowns its champions, both league and ‘world’, by playing best of 7 to determine which is the better team (I can never remember whether they play best of 5 or best of 7 to determine the teams that play for the league championships)…. and not through 1 game playoffs, ala the NFL.
So why not use head to head record during the regular season to determine postseason positions - isn’t that a close surrogate for a multi-game series and more in keeping with baseball tradition than a one game playoff?
As Spoons points out, having a one game playoff wrecks pitching rotations for the upcoming series. Forcing teams to have playoffs to determine home field advantage in the LCS could very well place them at a disadvantage in the Divisional playoffs.
The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that only two kinds of people got incensed over the Yankees beating out the Red Sox by this method…. purists and Red Sox fans…. Who’d a thunk you were a Bosox fan?
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Xrlq:
I’m afraid you’re all alone on this one. Using tiebreakers to resolve seeding issues is indeed the most sensible way to do it. And it’s not like these tiebreaks came as a surprise to anyone. The Red Sox knew going in to the series with New York that they had to sweep if they wanted to win the division.
The NFL has even more complicated tie breaking rules, wherein head-to-head competition is the first tiebreaker, conference record is the second, etc.
The philosophy behind this is really quite simple, and not at all “lame” in my estimation: all games are equal in value, except in the event of a tie, in which case, some games become more valuable than others.
No matter what else happened throughout the season, the Yankees were the better team than the Red Sox in their head-to-head meetings.
Now I’d agree it would be lame if something not related to the two tied teams were used as a tiebreaker, but the two tied teams are the only factor weighed here, so it makes sense.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:50 pm
steve:
Actually, although not truly a Bosox “fan,” I detest the Yankees and have a passing interest in the Bosox, and I think this is a reasonable way to decide it. So don’t go pinning this on the Bosox fans! :)
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Steve Sturm:
I’m not. My only dog in this fight is that making both teams play another game would leave the Yanks less rested for tomorrow’s game againts the Angels.
TGirsch:
So what? They weren’t the better team overall. The Yanks were a trifle better when the teams were playing each other, and the BoSox were the same trifle better when they weren’t. The season ended on a Sunday, so why not hand the division championship to whichever team had a better win-loss ratio on Sundays? That makes no more or less sense than the existing rule does.
Conversely, if the head-to-head record really did tell us anything useful about which team had a better record overall, why not use that to break all ties in division championships, not just the ones where the loser will be the wild card team? Either NY’s record makes them the legitimate AL East champs or it doesn’t; the answer shouldn’t depend on how any teams in other divisions did.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Xrlq:
By that rationale, even if the Padres played all five games against the Cardinals and won all five of them, the Cardinals should still advance because the Cardinals are a “better team overall” (100 wins to 87, in that impossible hypothetical). When the regular season ends, new rules come into play.
Here, at least, I agree with you. If you’re going to use head-to-head as a tie-breaker, then use it. The only place where I’d deviate from head-to-head as a tiebreaker is in a three- (or more) way tie. And even there, if team A beat both teams B and C in head-to-head play, they probably ought to advance.
October 4th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I agree, but I think the new rules should only apply to post-season play; they shouldn’t apply retroactively to the season itself. Teams play very different baseball during most of the regular season, where they must pace themselves, than they do in the post-season, where every game is a must-win for both teams, every time. Also, while I have no doubt that the Cardinals are a better team than the Padres (who “won” the National League Worst only because baseball rules don’t allow for an entire division to lose), I don’t think that a better W/L ratio in one division or league necessarily means that that team played better baseball than a more modest winner in another division: they didn’t play the same teams, the same number of times. It’s not hard to envision a scenario where the Yanks, the Red Sox, the Angels and the A’s all play better baseball than the Chicago White Sox, but the White Sox end up with the best W-L record because everyone else in the AL Central was bush league. That’s also the only reason, IMNSHO, why it makes sense to have a wild card team: we know they are the second best in one division (only in this case, we don’t even know that), but for all we know, they might actually be better than the other two division champs (either based on W/L ratio, or otherwise).
October 8th, 2005 at 8:44 am
They don’t apply “retro-actively.” They’re in effect for the entirety of the season. It’s somewhat uncommon for those rules to actually come into play, but nonetheless, they’re always there. It’s not as if some arbitrary post hoc ruling was applied to resolve an unresolvable tie.
No, but the team that wins in the playoffs isn’t always the “better” team, either — they’re just the one that got “hot” at the right time. That’s how the Marlins won a couple of years ago. (And it’s actually how Boston won last year.)
In any case, playing a 163rd game in what the rules dictate should be a 162-game season seems no less arbitrary to me than allowing preexisting tiebreakers to rule the day.
Essentially, it seems as if you don’t like the idea of tiebreakers at all. I think some tiebreakers (like this one) make sense, and other tiebreakers (like the old Big Ten rule that, in the event of a tie, awarded the conference championship to the team who had won it least recently, even ignoring other aspects like overall record) are just plain dumb. But here, the Yankees won the season series, so they get the nod.
Of course, in the end it doesn’t much matter, because the Red Sox are already gone and it looks like the Yankees won’t be too far behind them…
October 8th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Fingers crossed.
October 10th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Yeah, it seems I may have spoken too soon. Here’s hoping that the
California, err,Anaheim, err, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, California don’t blow it.Then again, in the AL I’m pulling for the White Sox, so it doesn’t much matter anyway. :)