Rob Manfred won’t eliminate one-game sudden-death wild-card game

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
68,796
98,908
Cambridge, MA
The commissioner says the format will not be changed no matter how this year plays out.

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred won’t eliminate one-game sudden-death wild-card game - The Boston Globe

“Let me walk you through how I think about it,” Manfred said at a Baseball Writers of America Association luncheon a few hours ahead of Tuesday night’s All-Star Game. “When we went to a one-game wild card, we did it for two fundamental reasons. We wanted to make sure that we did everything possible that teams played hard through a 162-game season. We take great pride that our regular season is meaningful and we always want it to be meaningful. How does our current system stack up on that goal? It seems to me that if the standings finished as they are today under the old system, the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn’t care who won the American League East. In contrast, under the new system we are going to be treated to a pennant race that goes all the way through to the end of September and they’re going to do everything they can to avoid playing in that one-game wild card.

“The second thing that we wanted to do is we wanted to disadvantage the wild-card team. There’s sentiment out there that winning your division should get you some advantage. Seems to me we stack up pretty well on that one as well. If you have Mookie Betts and the Red Sox nose out the Yankees by a game as a result of playing hard all the way through 162, they should get an advantage over the Yankees. And that advantage would take the form of those Yankees having to play a one-game playoff. So I’m pretty good with how it looks. I would also point out, and let me say this loud and clear, nobody appreciates the Yankee/Red Sox rivalry more than I do in terms of how important it is to the game. But I would also suggest if it’s the Brewers and Reds and winning 100 games, the uproar would be less than the Red Sox-Yankees one. So I don’t think you should get into redesigning your system based on the outcome of a particular year. Particularly when you’re getting the fundamental dynamics you were looking for.”
 

Cheese Wagstaff

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
1,418
976
Can’t wait to see a 104 win team gave to play a 92 win team in one game to see who has the right to make the playoffs.
 

BMOK33

Registered User
Oct 5, 2005
26,454
4,051
It’s eventually going to 3 games or going to be eliminated altogether and they’ll go back to the old format. I just don’t see it holding up this way over the next decade. More likely it’ll go to 3 games but wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing is just dropped
 

hockeykicker

Moderator
Dec 3, 2014
35,160
12,746
Can’t wait to see a 104 win team gave to play a 92 win team in one game to see who has the right to make the playoffs.

Well didnt we have like a 98 game winner and a 99 game winner play the nl wild card game like two years ago? The two wild card teams were better then the two other division winners. It happens
 

Cheese Wagstaff

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
1,418
976
Well didnt we have like a 98 game winner and a 99 game winner play the nl wild card game like two years ago? The two wild card teams were better then the two other division winners. It happens

It was bad then. If they insist on having a one game playoff then it should be between the fourth and fifth seeds. If you’re the second best team in baseball you shouldn’t have to play the eleventh best for a playoff spot just because you’re geographically close to the best team.
 

Cheese Wagstaff

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
1,418
976
You guys are going to watch the play-in games, anyway. That is all that the MLB higher ups care about.

(I'm only half kidding.)

Of course I will, but it’s still going to create absurd situations. We’re probably going to have two hundred win teams battling it out through September while the next three teams in the AL all rest up for the playoffs. And while it makes this pennant race better it makes plenty of them worse. The last night of 2011 would have been only for home field advantage under this system and in 2015 instead of a great three way race for two spots in the NL Central the last two weeks were basically meaningless as we all waited for them to play one game at the end anyway.
 

rangerssharks414

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
32,311
1,648
Long Island, NY
Of course I will, but it’s still going to create absurd situations. We’re probably going to have two hundred win teams battling it out through September while the next three teams in the AL all rest up for the playoffs. And while it makes this pennant race better it makes plenty of them worse. The last night of 2011 would have been only for home field advantage under this system and in 2015 instead of a great three way race for two spots in the NL Central the last two weeks were basically meaningless as we all waited for them to play one game at the end anyway.

Just for the record, I hate the play-in games too. I thought it was a dumb idea to begin with, but anything for more money...
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,886
24,027
Who cares if a 104 winning teams plays a 94 winning team. I mean, shit happens. If we are going to handpick teams to play in the wildcard just because their division is weak that year and they have less wins than a wildcard team, then what’s the point of having divisions altogether.

It’s a tough break but if the roles were reversed...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrigley

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,498
40,024
It's gonna suck when the Bombers have to face Paxton in a best of 1 but I trust Severino as well.
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,280
13,077
Illinois
If they adopted a series for the wild card teams, even just a best of three, you'd still be talking about icing the other teams possibly to their detriment. Like it or not, having a one game playoff is really the only option there, especially as you have to factor in the potential for a possible 163rd regular season game tiebreaker as well that could happen any year. At least this way actually gives a major incentive for divisional winners, which is kind of nice.

Not to mention that the MLB postseason's already often going past October, so we're already pushing the envelope as it is and it's not like they'll seriously consider cutting games from the season or scheduling doubleheaders to get around that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrigley

Say Hey Kid

Under the Sign of the Black Mark
Dec 10, 2007
23,820
5,620
Bathory
If they adopted a series for the wild card teams, even just a best of three, you'd still be talking about icing the other teams possibly to their detriment. Like it or not, having a one game playoff is really the only option there, especially as you have to factor in the potential for a possible 163rd regular season game tiebreaker as well that could happen any year. At least this way actually gives a major incentive for divisional winners, which is kind of nice.

Not to mention that the MLB postseason's already often going past October, so we're already pushing the envelope as it is and it's not like they'll seriously consider cutting games from the season or scheduling doubleheaders to get around that.
Agreed. Two teams enter, one team leaves.
 

Terry Yake

Registered User
Aug 5, 2013
26,804
15,275
the WC game is stupid

just bring back the old format with one WC winner from each league
 

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,829
14,714
Toronto, ON
I would prefer a best of 3 for the wild card but realize that icing the other teams is an issue. Here's some other crazy ideas for the wild card situation.

SPOILER: The team that advances from the play in game would be wrecked for the series with the no. 1 seed.

1. Play a double header - most runs over the two games advances

2. Play 2 games (double header or back to back) - WC 1 has home field advantage and only has to win only 1 game to advance, WC 2 needs to win both

3. Play best of 3 - Double header on day 1?, game 3 (if needed) goes the next day, all games played at WC1 stadium

Bonus idea: However the wild card is decided teams are then seeded 1-8 across the league. 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5. It could be an AL v AL matchup or NL v NL matchup but it could be AL v NL right off the bat.
 

Dont Toews Me Bro

Registered User
Mar 20, 2018
1,601
736
Too bad. Most fans love them. What these pampered millionaires are forgetting is that is that their job is to provide entertainment for the rest of us. If they don't want to play in the WC game, then win the division.
 

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,592
609
Martinaise, Revachol
Don`t agree with Manfred here. The league has a problem with fans tuning out because they know their team isn't going anywhere. So the league needs playoff reform, and the one game wildcard playoff is a massive impediment to that.

One game elimination games aren`t baseball either. Even the best team in the league is probably going to lose 55-60 games. Including ones against teams that lose 100 games. Why should playoff chances be decided by a statistical anomaly?
 

Big Poppa Puck

HF's Villain
Dec 8, 2009
20,559
959
D-Boss' Dungeon
So stupid. Divisions are stupid too I hate the "well win your division" mantra. "Well we won 104 games too bad we could win 107 (Meanwhile other 2 divisions have 90-95 win teams) looks like I have to play this one game playoff against a team I was 12 games better then. Aww shucks wish that team wasn't so close to us geographically!"

If you wanna have the 5th team you have to make a 3 game series. A sport predicate on series' having playoffs decided by 1 game is stupid. If you want to keep it 1 game you at least have to something similar to the NBA where winning the division has no affect on seeding and have to 2 worst records play each other.
 

darko

Registered User
Feb 16, 2009
70,267
7,792
If they adopted a series for the wild card teams, even just a best of three, you'd still be talking about icing the other teams possibly to their detriment. Like it or not, having a one game playoff is really the only option there, especially as you have to factor in the potential for a possible 163rd regular season game tiebreaker as well that could happen any year. At least this way actually gives a major incentive for divisional winners, which is kind of nice.

Not to mention that the MLB postseason's already often going past October, so we're already pushing the envelope as it is and it's not like they'll seriously consider cutting games from the season or scheduling doubleheaders to get around that.

Most teams will welcome a 3 day break between regular season and postseason. No reason you can't play best of 3 during that time.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad