There's nothing worse than having the 2nd best record in baseball and winning the wild card only to have to face ur division champ in the 2nd round....its unfair to both teams and the fans in both cities and around the world.

Missing the playoffs is worse than the scenario you describe.

To be the best, you gotta beat the best. 

You're probably not going to get much support if you call a 5 game series a "coinflip" and act like a 7 game series always determines the better team.

Posted by stevehoggett on 1/11/2013 4:45:00 AM (view original):
Great thinking outside the box guys, really appreciate your contributions. The point is its balanced schedules and if you finished 2nd in your division and 31st in waiver wire priority, you then have to face the 32nd in waiver wire (best record) in the second round.

Thus depriving yourself of a 7 game series and going more to a coinflip scenario in a 5 gamer. Both teams are also more likely to earn less money in year end bonus's.

A simple rule should be added that says teams should be re-seeded to avoid playing their own division as long as possible. Regardless of seed.

Sorry that you don't like the lack of enthusiasm about your suggestion, but it seems like you're trying to "solve" a problem that nobody else feels is a problem.

I know it's unlikely ever to change but I've always disliked the combination of a balanced schedule and divisional standings. It's not all that uncommon to see a team without one of the top 6 records in the league make the playoffs or a team that does have one of the top 6 records miss the playoffs. Sure, interleague opponents vary for each division, but that's not nearly enough to make divisions relevant.

Team with the best regular season record wins the WS.

Problem solved.

Posted by bripat42 on 1/11/2013 9:40:00 AM (view original):
I know it's unlikely ever to change but I've always disliked the combination of a balanced schedule and divisional standings. It's not all that uncommon to see a team without one of the top 6 records in the league make the playoffs or a team that does have one of the top 6 records miss the playoffs. Sure, interleague opponents vary for each division, but that's not nearly enough to make divisions relevant.

I used to dislike the balanced intraleague schedule because it does make divisions less relevant, but there is a downside to an unbalanced, division-heavy schedule.

If you have a team that's tanking, or is consistently a big loser due to an incompetent owner, then the other three teams in that division have an unfair advantage over the rest of the league as they can pad their win totals by virtue of an easier schedule.  That would distort the wild-card races.

I'm with tecwrg on this. Followed the same path from not liking the balanced schedule to thinking it's for the greater good.

Reseeding would be fine.  But it's not anywhere near the top 10 list of things that should be improved in HBD.

If I get one wish for the playoffs, it would be to make the Division Championship round best of 7 instead of best of 5.  The top seed should have to lose 4 of 7 to be eliminated.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/11/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bripat42 on 1/11/2013 9:40:00 AM (view original):
I know it's unlikely ever to change but I've always disliked the combination of a balanced schedule and divisional standings. It's not all that uncommon to see a team without one of the top 6 records in the league make the playoffs or a team that does have one of the top 6 records miss the playoffs. Sure, interleague opponents vary for each division, but that's not nearly enough to make divisions relevant.

I used to dislike the balanced intraleague schedule because it does make divisions less relevant, but there is a downside to an unbalanced, division-heavy schedule.

If you have a team that's tanking, or is consistently a big loser due to an incompetent owner, then the other three teams in that division have an unfair advantage over the rest of the league as they can pad their win totals by virtue of an easier schedule.  That would distort the wild-card races.

I understand the argument, and it would be a problem, but the combination of divisions and a balanced schedule poses a similar problem. Teams in weak divisions have a lower standard to meet for making the playoffs than do teams in stronger divisions. This is anecdotal, I know, but in the 16 seasons I've played I count 15 instances of teams winning their divisions and thus making the playoffs despite a wins total that ranked 7th or lower in their respective leagues. That obviously is an average of almost once per season.

Allowing teams to "luck" their way into the playoffs so frequently doesn't seem to me to be any kind of an improvement over the scenario you describe.

It is what it is, I suppose, and it's not going to change but it does still bug me.

bripat42 - You make a good point and I can't argue against your logic.  But I still like the small division rivalries HBD has. Winning the division is a smaller goal on the way to the WS goal. One more reason for friendly trash talk.

I'll agree that a 77-85 team making the playoffs and an 85-77 team not isn't great. But that could motivate the 3 other GMs in the 77-85 division to go for it next season instead of tanking for draft picks.

And that 85-77 team is more likely to try to get a little bit better than tank next season.

A bit of randomness among the 5-6 playoff seeds seems to be a greater good. I doubt many of the the teams that get into the playoffs this way make the WS.