STEALING THIS FROM WEEKEND_WARRIOR
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BRADY KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong thread? Or did you ignore that shit game like myself and are ready for baseball season. Good lesson for Selig though, he wants to expand the playoffs to NFL size, then prepare for a shit unworthy team barely over .500 team being your championship winner. Not that it hasn't already happened in the past in MLB, but still, it could actually be even worse.
Does it matter? If a team above way .500 can't get there then they don't deserve to be there. Fuck off.
Wrong thread? Or did you ignore that shit game like myself and are ready for baseball season. Good lesson for Selig though, he wants to expand the playoffs to NFL size, then prepare for a shit unworthy team barely over .500 team being your championship winner. Not that it hasn't already happened in the past in MLB, but still, it could actually be even worse.
Did you briefly die in 2006 or something?
Let's also not forget that the San Diego Padres won the NL West in 2004 with a 82-80 record.
Well that's why I said that it already happened. St Louis is like the quality team kryptonite come playoff time, like the Giants are in football. Teams that wouldn't likely have been there under a more logical playoffs system with reduced divisions.
It could actually get worse though, that's scary to think about.
Yeah because a 162 game season needs to be reduced to even more irrelevance off the backs of playoffs expansion. Look up how many high 90's or 100 win teams lose a series or three to horrible teams all season, it can happen to anyone. But I guess adding more randomness to the playoffs and having shit undeserving teams luck their way into a game they don't deserve is worth it. Can't wait for an 82-80 NL West team winning one game as a 5 seed to get in the real playoffs, then winning it all. Why not just let every team in then and have one game playoffs to the end and really make it great.
Look, we're all mad about the Cardinals lucking 2 WS wins but I think you're exaggerating a bit.
deliciously bitter Reds tearsWell that's why I said that it already happened. St Louis is like the quality team kryptonite come playoff time, like the Giants are in football. Teams that wouldn't likely have been there under a more logical playoffs system with reduced divisions.
It could actually get worse though, that's scary to think about.
deliciously bitter Reds tears
the only way to do what you want (make it really unlikely for the 100 win teams to lose to teams with inferior records) is to scrap the WC system altogether. might as well go all the way and make the best regular season record teams meet in the WS like the good 'ol days. since that's not going to happen, let's have a better system than the current one and make a division title worth more than an extra home game.
balancing out the regular season schedule is higher priority than any changes to the playoff system but Selig lol
FUCK YES!BASEBALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ordered me a cheap quality portable AM radio for some baseball goodness. Let the good times roll baby.
Fail! Smart phone + mlb.tv (even the radio sub) is the way to go!
Eznark what happened with that tag?
The owners would never approve of eliminating an entire round of playoff revenue just for an extra game or two in the first round though. I guess it could be exchanged with something else that the players' association values but I don't think the players are that interested in overhauling the current playoff system.4 teams, make the the first round 7 games as well, go back to two divisions. You solve shitty division winners getting in, and you make the first round longer to give the better team the chance to survive.
Best of 5, really? Even the NBA got rid of that shit even though basketball is the sport LEAST likely to need 7 games to prove who the better team is in the first round. I can't believe baseball continues to hinge 162 game season on losing 3 games in Rd 1. It's ridiculous.
The owners would never approve of eliminating an entire round of playoff revenue just for an extra game or two in the first round though. I guess it could be exchanged with something else that the players' association values but I don't think the players are that interested in overhauling the current playoff system.
Making it closer to the NBA system where upsets are less likely to happen won't necessarily make the playoffs any more enjoyable. It'll probably cast a bigger light on the edge that large market teams have so we won't get stupid articles like this though.
I don't have a smart phone, I'm old school brah. And why would I pay for a subscription to something I can get free?
So ready to watch My Blue Jays flirt with .500 and end up in third place again!
Honestly, I think third is shooting it a little high for you guys.
Because you can only get local games, brah. I can listen to all the games in both broadcasts, even Spanish if I want!
Members of the Yankees Council that supports the Giants: Celebrate, rest up. We ride at dawn.
![]()
Man my teams all suck
Jets are awful, the Knicks stink. On topic, the Mets are just going to be awful. I'm still stinging after the loss of my favorite player of all-time Jose Reyes (like him without the dreads, reminds me of the good ole days of 2006).
The NL East is going to be a great division to watch. The Phillies are still the favorites but I think the Braves, Marlins, and even the Nationals have a chance. I did not think this was possible, but top to bottom the Marlins may have better pitching than the Phillies. The Mets are, by far, the worst team in the division. We're paying Santana 20+ million to be maybe the 5th best pitcher in the divison LOL. Oh, and Jason Bay haha
Anyway, will be a fun season for anybody who's not a Mets fan.
Man my teams all suck
Jets are awful, the Knicks stink. On topic, the Mets are just going to be awful. I'm still stinging after the loss of my favorite player of all-time Jose Reyes (like him without the dreads, reminds me of the good ole days of 2006).
The NL East is going to be a great division to watch. The Phillies are still the favorites but I think the Braves, Marlins, and even the Nationals have a chance. I did not think this was possible, but top to bottom the Marlins may have better pitching than the Phillies. The Mets are, by far, the worst team in the division. We're paying Santana 20+ million to be maybe the 5th best pitcher in the divison LOL. Oh, and Jason Bay haha
Anyway, will be a fun season for anybody who's not a Mets fan.
Why does it seem like New York fans typically follow the pattern of:
Yankees-Giants-Rangers
OR
Mets-Jets-Islanders
Maybe the hockey teams not as strict, but it seems like NY fans either follow all the successful popular teams or the underdog less popular teams. Not much in between.
With older fans its a geographical thing more than anything. The Jets used to play in Shea from the 60s to the early 80s. Not really sure why there seems to be a strong correlation between Giants and Yankees fans but the Jets / Mets thing is rooted in history.
Why does it seem like New York fans typically follow the pattern of:
Yankees-Giants-Rangers
OR
Mets-Jets-Islanders
Maybe the hockey teams not as strict, but it seems like NY fans either follow all the successful popular teams or the underdog less popular teams. Not much in between.
Well, I was born in Queens for reference, being a Mets fan was natural. Not sure why I (unfortunately) became a Jets fan. Spent some time in Long Island and became an Islanders fan out there but hockey isn't nearly that big for me. Good question though.
Wrong thread? Or did you ignore that shit game like myself and are ready for baseball season. Good lesson for Selig though, he wants to expand the playoffs to NFL size, then prepare for a shit unworthy team barely over .500 team being your championship winner. Not that it hasn't already happened in the past in MLB, but still, it could actually be even worse.
So much salt in this post lol.
Yankees will finish what the Giants started this year by hoisting #28.
Why does it seem like New York fans typically follow the pattern of:
Yankees-Giants-Rangers
OR
Mets-Jets-Islanders
Maybe the hockey teams not as strict, but it seems like NY fans either follow all the successful popular teams or the underdog less popular teams. Not much in between.
Ah, that makes more sense then. I agree that fewer divisions would be make things a bit 'more fair' and it would probably easier to fit a balanced schedule in as well.I meant 4 in each league, the same as it is now. Just make the first round best of 7, and make the divisions back to two.
Honestly, every year you look at the standings there's about on average like one team that deserved to get in overall that didn't. And on average there's one really bad division winner that shouldn't have been in.
I think 4 is the sweet spot, not 5. But, there should be more situations like last year where teams get to play themselves in in big time matchups. That last day of the regular season was the most exciting day of baseball in a long, long time after a mostly boring regular season and playoffs.
Why not more out of the box thinking? Like for example, schedule 156 games and leave the last two series of the season up to the schedulers when it gets to that point. Then MLB can schedule the teams closest in standings for the division or wild card. So you know, there's actually relevant games at the end of the year.
Giving the Mets/Jets/Nets rhyming names is definitely intentional, right?Actually while that explains the first three that doesn't quite explain why the latter are usually bunched together, but I imagine it can be a combination of additional factors like geography and whatnot. Maybe a form of recency bias among those who aren't already on the traditional bandwagon?