This game can be maddening sometimes

[Padreman]

S#!t happens man

[Matt Arnold]

Do you know what else is maddening? Having your pitcher come within ONE OUT of a perfect game! In the playoffs, no less! Then the *&%# bastard from the other team squeaks a little single through. Stupid game.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Do you know what else is maddening? Having your pitcher come within ONE OUT of a perfect game! In the playoffs, no less! Then the *&%# bastard from the other team squeaks a little single through. Stupid game.

Yeah, we hate this game.

Don't we?

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Aaron's Aron

I think that there is a way for a sports league to combat the issue of playoffs not being an accurate representation of who the best team was. Of course a 269 game series would be too long, and having every series be 23 games is a too long as well because there would be no time for the season. However... how about a 162 game series? One big series involving thirty teams, lasting 162 games?

I follow soccer pretty closely, particularly the Barclays Premier League (CHELSEA!), and one thing I love is how they determine the ultimate winner. There is no playoffs, and it is just one big division. Whoever has the most amount of points at the end of season wins! I love this because it more accurately represents who the best team is. In the playoffs, as you guys said, a team can just get hot at the right time and win it all, while a completely dominate team can get cold or match up against the hot team and get knocked out. This system rewards good play throughout the entire season. Consistent play is better than two to three weeks of hot play. Streaks balance out over the season too, which doesn't happen in the playoffs. It also helps teams that get their star player that hit .310 during the season which became meaningless once the playoffs started injured, making it a whole new, worse team.

I know I could have explained and worded that better, but I have concussions so meh. That's just my opinion, and obviously it won't happen in real life MLB, but I just think it is a very interesting idea.

The greatest thing about OOTP is your ability to do exactly that, though.

Some people have made promotion/relegation leagues that have been extremely rewarding as well, even though promotion/relegation aren't even hardcoded into the engine!

[Pronkytonk]

Originally Posted by Aaron's Aron

I follow soccer pretty closely, particularly the Barclays Premier League (CHELSEA!), and one thing I love is how they determine the ultimate winner. There is no playoffs, and it is just one big division. Whoever has the most amount of points at the end of season wins! I love this because it more accurately represents who the best team is. In the playoffs, as you guys said, a team can just get hot at the right time and win it all, while a completely dominate team can get cold or match up against the hot team and get knocked out. This system rewards good play throughout the entire season. Consistent play is better than two to three weeks of hot play. Streaks balance out over the season too, which doesn't happen in the playoffs. It also helps teams that get their star player that hit .310 during the season which became meaningless once the playoffs started injured, making it a whole new, worse team.

This is funny because in european soccer every couple of years someone proposes the invention of playoffs for the national championships because it would add more thrill. I agree with you that giving away the championship to the team with the best record rewards the best team over the course of the season, but coming off two years seeing the German Championship decided months before the season ended because one team (mostly because the fact that their payroll is at least three times higher than anybody else's) dominated by far I start leaning towards a playoff mode to keep the season interesting to the very end. The Champions League that should decide who is the best team in all of Europe does have a playoff mode, and for the fans it might be a good idea to add one for the national championships, too.

Points can be made for both options, but in the end it might not always be the wish to find out who the real deserving winner is that decides but the amount of money from TV-contracts etc.

[MarkInCincy]

The OP is completely wrong, this 'game' is always maddening!!!
...
In the WBL, I have made the playoffs 3 out of 5 yrs. We were the 16th seed (last seed) and made it to the semis, then 15th or 16th made it to the finals, then I decided to semi rebuild and traded a few starters including Tanaka, we make the playoffs again as a top tier (4th or so) and lose first 3 games of round 1 eventually bowing out 4-2....
.....
Team must have more motivation as an underdog.
.....

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Yeah, we hate this game.

Don't we?

No. In Soviet Russia, OOTP hates YOU.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Aaron's Aron

I think that there is a way for a sports league to combat the issue of playoffs not being an accurate representation of who the best team was. Of course a 269 game series would be too long, and having every series be 23 games is a too long as well because there would be no time for the season. However... how about a 162 game series? One big series involving thirty teams, lasting 162 games?

I follow soccer pretty closely, particularly the Barclays Premier League (CHELSEA!), and one thing I love is how they determine the ultimate winner. There is no playoffs, and it is just one big division. Whoever has the most amount of points at the end of season wins! I love this because it more accurately represents who the best team is. In the playoffs, as you guys said, a team can just get hot at the right time and win it all, while a completely dominate team can get cold or match up against the hot team and get knocked out. This system rewards good play throughout the entire season. Consistent play is better than two to three weeks of hot play. Streaks balance out over the season too, which doesn't happen in the playoffs. It also helps teams that get their star player that hit .310 during the season which became meaningless once the playoffs started injured, making it a whole new, worse team.

I know I could have explained and worded that better, but I have concussions so meh. That's just my opinion, and obviously it won't happen in real life MLB, but I just think it is a very interesting idea.

You missed one critical point. The balanced schedule ie one home and one away game against every other team. Without that a league champion from a divisional based league and an unbalanced schedule is a fraud.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by RchW

You missed one critical point. The balanced schedule ie one home and one away game against every other team. Without that a league champion from a divisional based league and an unbalanced schedule is a fraud.

Great point.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by aquapong

Once again...my team was 64-64 with an anemic offense. In September I go on a 21-4 run and end up taking the wildcard. I cruise to the WS and then my anemic offense returns. I had no business being in the playoffs, I even was selling at the deadline to build for next season.

Now this season my team is much better...wouldn't call it stacked, but certainly much better. Watch I'll be out in the first round.

And once again I'll point out that the 1969 NY Mets were 50-50 (at the time the best record by far of any Met team, ever) and then closed with a 50-12 run, won the very first divisional playoff ever, then, thanks to the shoe polish on the foot of Cleon Jones, beat the O's and their HOFer stocked roster.

[Airdrop01]

Since the wild card I think around 1 in 6 times the best team has won the WS. I like the Beane quote Wolf put up. I'm not a Beane fan but even if you believe in his system, he's right it doesn't work in the playoffs. Fewer walks; better teams; shorter staffs and only the best pitchers would seem to me to remove the whole get on base, draw walks idea.

2006 Cards won just 83 if memory serves.

[Aaron's Aron]

Originally Posted by Pronkytonk

This is funny because in european soccer every couple of years someone proposes the invention of playoffs for the national championships because it would add more thrill. I agree with you that giving away the championship to the team with the best record rewards the best team over the course of the season, but coming off two years seeing the German Championship decided months before the season ended because one team (mostly because the fact that their payroll is at least three times higher than anybody else's) dominated by far I start leaning towards a playoff mode to keep the season interesting to the very end. The Champions League that should decide who is the best team in all of Europe does have a playoff mode, and for the fans it might be a good idea to add one for the national championships, too.

Points can be made for both options, but in the end it might not always be the wish to find out who the real deserving winner is that decides but the amount of money from TV-contracts etc.

This is true. Good point. I suppose there would need to be some way to combat this. You could just have every team have the same payroll, rather than have them be based on market size. Sounds good to me. Probably not good to Yankees and Dodgers fans though lol.

[Aaron's Aron]

Originally Posted by RchW

You missed one critical point. The balanced schedule ie one home and one away game against every other team. Without that a league champion from a divisional based league and an unbalanced schedule is a fraud.

Hey, I'm just a boy.

How about boosting the season to 174 games and play every team six times - three at home and three away? That could work because while the season would be slightly longer than normal, you don't have the playoffs in this system so it actually balances out (possibly to less games). You get to play every team this way too. :]

This would also be great because then the Reds wouldn't have to play the Cardinals as much whom they can never seem to beat. Ever. Seriously, I mean ever.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Aaron's Aron

I follow soccer pretty closely, particularly the Barclays Premier League (CHELSEA!), and one thing I love is how they determine the ultimate winner. There is no playoffs, and it is just one big division. Whoever has the most amount of points at the end of season wins! I love this because it more accurately represents who the best team is. In the playoffs, as you guys said, a team can just get hot at the right time and win it all, while a completely dominate team can get cold or match up against the hot team and get knocked out.

I agree with your premise, that a non-playoff system is the most likely to get the title to the best team.

I'd oppose getting rid of the playoffs, though, because making the season exciting is more important to me than the best team getting the championship.

MLB has a very good system for playoffs right now. It hasn't gone the NBA/NHL route of putting ridiculous numbers of teams in the playoffs, which really cheapens the regular season if done; but it keeps more teams in contention longer than a no-playoff system would. An English soccer-type system would likely often have only two teams with a realistic shot (more with a mathematical chance, but that's different from a realistic chance) of winning the championship by the end of August. That isn't very exciting, even omitting the excitement of the postseason itself.

When I first heard about the second wild card I was a bit skeptical, but I then realized it actually makes winning the division more valuable, so you avoid the play-in game, while if a team can't realistically win its division at some point in the season, but still has a decent shot at a wild card, better the play-in game than nothing.