Should a tiebreaker game be counted as post-season or regular season? [Archive]

KevinWI

09-29-2008, 10:59 PM

Why would you count them as post season when they decide the outcome of the regular season?

Hello, exactly.

This hearkens back to the days when only one team one the NL and only one team one the AL, and those two teams played each other in the World Series. No divisions, LCS or LDS.

hudsonharden

09-29-2008, 11:46 PM

I kind of want it put in baseball-purgatory. The season is 162 games, and 8 teams make the playoffs. A tiebreaker is like February 29th.

BiZmaRK

09-30-2008, 12:49 AM

Hello, exactly.

This hearkens back to the days when only one team one the NL and only one team one the AL, and those two teams played each other in the World Series. No divisions, LCS or LDS.
Your signature says the Brewers need to win 5 games in the NLCS and 5 games in the WS. Am I missing something or did the NLCS & WS expand to a 9 game series?

philkid3

09-30-2008, 01:15 AM

I don't think it ever should have been counted as a regular season game, but I wouldn't change it now.

KevinWI

09-30-2008, 07:36 AM

Your signature says the Brewers need to win 5 games in the NLCS and 5 games in the WS. Am I missing something or did the NLCS & WS expand to a 9 game series?

You can tell it's been 26 years.

Fixing now.

White Knight

10-01-2008, 09:40 AM

ipitch

10-01-2008, 09:57 AM

It should be a postseason game, especially since a team could possibly even play three (or more?) tiebreaker games.

And, while we're at it, a coin flip should not determine who gets home field advantage! The NFL does it right...

Two Clubs
1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.
6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best net points in conference games.
9. Best net points in all games.
10. Best net touchdowns in all games.
11. Coin toss.

spark240

10-01-2008, 10:22 AM

But what if a record is broken in game number 163? Let's say someone has 72 HR's going into the tiebreaker. In that game, he hits two HR's, and now has 74. Should he get an asterisk...?

Maury Wills did hold a 20th-century single-season SB record for a while, with 104 steals in 165 games played with the '62 Dodgers. And I believe four of those swipes came in the "extra" games.

That Frick of a Commissioner did want Wills' record "asterisked," or held as a separate record, as he had suggested the previous year for Maris' HR record. My view is that he was wrong; a season is a season is a season. In any case, the official record books in fact do not distinguish either mark.

White Knight

10-01-2008, 10:28 AM

I believe Maury Wills did hold a 20th-century single-season SB record for a while, with 104 steals in 165 games played with the '62 Dodgers. And I believe four of those swipes came in the "extra" games.

No asterisk. A season is a season is a season.

I don't know, I don't really like the unfair advantage if a record is broken. But for now I say keep it the way it is. Maybe I'll change my mind if someone is going into the game with 380 strikeouts, and leaves with 390. We'll see. :)

EdTarbusz

10-01-2008, 11:04 AM

It's a regu;ar season game. It's the same thing as extra innings.

Tenorman

10-01-2008, 01:29 PM

Agreed. It is just an extra game required to decide the outcome of a tied season, just like extra innings decide the outcome of a tied game. We don't asterisk stats if they occur in the 11th inning.

For those who think of a 163rd game as an "unfair" advantage and a chance for players to add to their stats, consider that this season, 2 AL teams (Baltimore and Oakland) and 4 NL teams (Florida, Washington, Cubs and Houston) only played 161 games. Are the players on these teams "owed" an extra game to add to their stats? No, so why should a player be penalized for playing an extra game?

It is no more the post-season than extra innings are.

White Knight

10-01-2008, 01:33 PM

We don't asterisk stats if they occur in the 11th inning.

We would if a pitcher struck out 21 in 11 innings.

RuthMayBond

10-01-2008, 02:29 PM

BoSox Rule

10-01-2008, 02:36 PM

If it was a playoff game....they wouldn't be playing it....because they'd be in the playoffs....

Brooklyn

10-01-2008, 02:47 PM

Normally, I'd say leave it. But what if a record is broken in game number 163? Let's say someone has 72 HR's going into the tiebreaker. In that game, he hits two HR's, and now has 74. Should he get an asterisk, since he has an unfair advantage (no steroids jokes, let's pretend they don't exist or I'll bring up another record to prove this point)?

How is that different than ties, which happened a lot more in the old days (I don't think they can happen anymore do to the suspended game rules, but I may be wrong)

See 1965, for example. Ron Santo played 164 games. The Cubs tied the Cards April 12 and the Mets May 31. In those games, he went 3-8. Should he only be credited with 170 hits that year instead of 173, with an asterik next to the other 3? What if he had broken a record?

Ties were part of the season, and so is the extra game. Neither can be prediced, but if a record is broken in that game, so be it.

White Knight

10-01-2008, 03:38 PM

What did old-timers feel like when the season was expanded from 154 to 162 (and EVERYONE gets a crack at that), certainly no worse than that I don't hear many complaints about it

Big difference for two reasons. One is that we went to 162 nearly 50 years ago. The second is a one-game playoff is only available to the teams in that playoff, so only a select few get the extra chance.

White Knight

10-01-2008, 03:44 PM

How is that different than ties, which happened a lot more in the old days (I don't think they can happen anymore do to the suspended game rules, but I may be wrong)

See 1965, for example. Ron Santo played 164 games. The Cubs tied the Cards April 12 and the Mets May 31. In those games, he went 3-8. Should he only be credited with 170 hits that year instead of 173, with an asterik next to the other 3? What if he had broken a record?

Ties were part of the season, and so is the extra game. Neither can be prediced, but if a record is broken in that game, so be it.

I prefer to talk about today's times, when was the last time a tie resulted in 163 or 164 games? I think if we have to have a tie (and I'm against ties, BTW), just leave it at that and call it an official game, no extra games necessary. If you have to play again (for standings purposes), continue it at a later date, but start it at the point in which the game was tied, like in the 15th inning (or whatever). Why people didn't think of this in the past is beyond me.

Walt Zink

10-01-2008, 03:47 PM

Big difference for two reasons. One is that we went to 162 nearly 50 years ago. The second is a one-game playoff is only available to the teams in that playoff, so only a select few get the extra chance.

and what if said players missed 5 games earlier in the season due to - for example - a death in the family? or being beaned intentionally and getting hurt? i mean, we could go back and forth but the players shouldn't be penalized simply because of their team's record and the fact that they're tied with another team. that's out of the player's control to a large extent.

conversely, let's say ted williams, who was at .3996 on the final day of 1941, decided to SIT instead of play? would you think less of him for not playing and taking the easy way to a .400 batting average? the players play to win and get into the playoffs first and foremost. i doubt that they look at it to pad onto their stats :)

White Knight

10-01-2008, 07:17 PM

and what if said players missed 5 games earlier in the season due to - for example - a death in the family? or being beaned intentionally and getting hurt? i mean, we could go back and forth but the players shouldn't be penalized simply because of their team's record and the fact that they're tied with another team. that's out of the player's control to a large extent.

Although this might sound heartless, it's their problem. They chose to miss those five games. Sucks if he gets hurt, but while you can miss as many games for whatever reason, you can't choose to play in 163 games, it's purely luck not your own actions like missing games or getting hurt or suspended.

Conversely, let's say ted williams, who was at .3996 on the final day of 1941, decided to SIT instead of play? would you think less of him for not playing and taking the easy way to a .400 batting average? the players play to win and get into the playoffs first and foremost. i doubt that they look at it to pad onto their stats :)

Of course I'd still consider Ted a .400 hitter if he sat, that would be his choice. However, let's say he was hitting .397, and the BA champion so far was some guy on a last place team, hitting .399. Season's over, except the Yankees and Red Sox are exactly tied at 100-54 apiece. So now comes the one game playoff. Ted goes 4-4 and not only winds up hitting .401, but he wins the batting title. You going to tell me that's fair? Hell no, I wouldn't give him full credit, sorry.

redlegsfan21

10-01-2008, 07:37 PM

sflnyc

10-01-2008, 07:42 PM

Leave it as a regular season game. Back in pre-division days, the 3-game playoffs (I can think of 1951 NL and 1962 NL off the top of my head) all counted as regular season games and then with the advent of divisions, they became 1-game playoffs. If its not broken, don't fix it.

Now, the ridiculous setup forbidding two teams from the same division to play in the Divisional Series, that's another matter... :twocents:

BiZmaRK

10-02-2008, 01:07 AM

and what if said players missed 5 games earlier in the season due to - for example - a death in the family? or being beaned intentionally and getting hurt? i mean, we could go back and forth but the players shouldn't be penalized simply because of their team's record and the fact that they're tied with another team. that's out of the player's control to a large extent.

conversely, let's say ted williams, who was at .3996 on the final day of 1941, decided to SIT instead of play? would you think less of him for not playing and taking the easy way to a .400 batting average? the players play to win and get into the playoffs first and foremost. i doubt that they look at it to pad onto their stats :)
If a player finishes at .3996 and gets rounded up to .400, he didn't really hit .400. He finished below .400.

With respect to an advantage to playing 163 games instead of 162 or a disadvantage of playing 161 instead of 162, the only truly meaningful baseball stats are those figured on a "per" basis. Per plate appearance is the best "per" for batters and per inning pitched is the best "per" for pitchers. All these counting stats need to be tossed aside, as they only mislead the less than astute baseball fans.

BiZmaRK

10-02-2008, 01:09 AM

Although this might sound heartless, it's their problem. They chose to miss those five games. Sucks if he gets hurt, but while you can miss as many games for whatever reason, you can't choose to play in 163 games, it's purely luck not your own actions like missing games or getting hurt or suspended.

Of course I'd still consider Ted a .400 hitter if he sat, that would be his choice. However, let's say he was hitting .397, and the BA champion so far was some guy on a last place team, hitting .399. Season's over, except the Yankees and Red Sox are exactly tied at 100-54 apiece. So now comes the one game playoff. Ted goes 4-4 and not only winds up hitting .401, but he wins the batting title. You going to tell me that's fair? Hell no, I wouldn't give him full credit, sorry.
How is it not fair? The fairness in batting average is that it is figured on a per at bat basis.

RuthMayBond

10-02-2008, 07:54 AM

With respect to an advantage to playing 163 games instead of 162 or a disadvantage of playing 161 instead of 162, the only truly meaningful baseball stats are those figured on a "per" basis. Per plate appearance is the best "per" for batters and per inning pitched is the best "per" for pitchers. All these counting stats need to be tossed aside, as they only mislead the less than astute baseball fans.John Paciorek loves you

KCGHOST

10-02-2008, 07:58 AM

Just leave it as is.

Tenorman

10-02-2008, 08:47 AM

How is it not fair? The fairness in batting average is that it is figured on a per at bat basis.

Exactly. If, as in the above example, Williams and someone else are dead even at .399 the end of 154 games, and Ted gets a one-game playoff in which he goes 0-4 or 1-4, he loses the batting title. Ya pays your money, ya takes your chances.

ipitch

10-02-2008, 10:10 AM

conversely, let's say ted williams, who was at .3996 on the final day of 1941, decided to SIT instead of play? would you think less of him for not playing and taking the easy way to a .400 batting average?

Yes. I don't think players should decide to sit or play because of a stat.

RuthMayBond

10-02-2008, 10:16 AM

Yes. I don't think players should decide to sit or play because of a stat.Easy for you to say if you've never been in the sitatuation. I'd sure be tempted to sit so I'd be hard pressed to fault him, unless his team was virtually tied for a playoff spot or something.

redlegsfan21

10-02-2008, 11:09 AM

I prefer to talk about today's times, when was the last time a tie resulted in 163 or 164 games? I think if we have to have a tie (and I'm against ties, BTW), just leave it at that and call it an official game, no extra games necessary. If you have to play again (for standings purposes), continue it at a later date, but start it at the point in which the game was tied, like in the 15th inning (or whatever). Why people didn't think of this in the past is beyond me.

2005. Both the Reds and Astros played 163 games. I think that is today's times.

ipitch

10-02-2008, 11:26 AM

Easy for you to say if you've never been in the sitatuation. I'd sure be tempted to sit so I'd be hard pressed to fault him, unless his team was virtually tied for a playoff spot or something.

I haven't been in that situation obviously, but there's no way I'd sit with a 3.9955 average, just so I could say that I hit .400. MLB considers .39955 to be .400, but I don't, and I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't. Ted said he'd be "cheating" if he had sat out.

RuthMayBond

10-02-2008, 11:31 AM

I haven't been in that situation obviously, but there's no way I'd sit with a 3.9955 average, just so I could say that I hit .400.You might, you might be giving us :blah:
Like the BBF guy who hated the Yankees and said if they were the only team to offer him playing time in the bigs, he'd turn them down :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Captain Cold Nose

10-02-2008, 01:19 PM

If it was a playoff game....they wouldn't be playing it....because they'd be in the playoffs....

As poignant as it is simple. And true.

Rennie Stennett

10-02-2008, 01:48 PM

why did the Sox - Tigers game ans the Sox - Twins games have umpires along both outfield lines ? Are these regular season games ?

White Knight

10-02-2008, 02:29 PM

Exactly. If, as in the above example, Williams and someone else are dead even at .399 the end of 154 games, and Ted gets a one-game playoff in which he goes 0-4 or 1-4, he loses the batting title. Ya pays your money, ya takes your chances.

You changed it around. Ted is batting .397. The leader at the end of 154 games is batting .399. Ted has nothing to lose, so even if he goes 0-4, he's still in second. But he could unfairly tie or surpass him if he gets two or three hits.

White Knight

10-02-2008, 02:32 PM

Yes. I don't think players should decide to sit or play because of a stat.

So if Randy Johnson had 299 wins, and had stated he would retire this season no matter what, you wouldn't let him pitch on three days rest on the last regular game of the season (providing the game is meaningless)? I sure would.

White Knight

10-02-2008, 02:33 PM

You might, you might be giving us :blah:
Like the BBF guy who hated the Yankees and said if they were the only team to offer him playing time in the bigs, he'd turn them down :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Lol, someone really said that?

spark240

10-02-2008, 04:00 PM

Ted is batting .397. The leader at the end of 154 games is batting .399. Ted has nothing to lose, so even if he goes 0-4, he's still in second. But he could unfairly tie or surpass him if he gets two or three hits.

It wouldn't be "unfair," any more than it would be unfair for Ted to get two hits on a day in May when when the other guy had a head cold.

White Knight

10-02-2008, 04:03 PM

It wouldn't be "unfair," any more than it would be unfair for Ted to get two hits on a day in May when when the other guy had a head cold.

That guy with the head cold can play all he wants, and it's a part of life, like the common extra-inning game. Playing in one extra game that the other guy can't play in is completely different.

spark240

10-02-2008, 04:07 PM

That guy with the head cold can play all he wants, and it's a part of life, like the common extra-inning game. Playing in one extra game that the other guy can't play in is completely different.

Well, I disagree. Neither player has control over whether his team plays extra innings or extra games, just as each is susceptible to factors beyond his control which could crimp his ability at any point along the way.

highpockets

10-02-2008, 04:13 PM

If a player finishes at .3996 and gets rounded up to .400, he didn't really hit .400. He finished below .400.

He really hit .400. He finished below .4000.

White Knight

10-02-2008, 04:48 PM

Well, I disagree. Neither player has control over whether his team plays extra innings or extra games, just as each is susceptible to factors beyond his control which could crimp his ability at any point along the way.

I think the reason that I see a difference is because extra innings games are more common, and it's pretty much a given that you will play some. I see you're point though. What if player A's team played in 30 extra innings games, while player B's team played in 10? Tough call.

ipitch

10-02-2008, 05:27 PM

He really hit .400. He finished below .4000.

Only because MLB wants it that way. Rounding down is sometimes done too. In bowling, if your average is 189.999, your average of record is 189.

Walt Zink

10-02-2008, 07:33 PM

BiZmaRK

10-02-2008, 07:38 PM

He really hit .400. He finished below .4000.
.3996 is below .400

BiZmaRK

10-02-2008, 07:40 PM

so say one guy plays 15 extra inning games, while another player plays on a team where he plays in only 3. they both play EVERY inning. say 2 innings on average. player one gets about a dozen more at bats. and he rakes it going 8 for 12 and wins the batting title because of that. should he be penalized because his team happened to finish more 9 inning games tied?
As I said earlier, batting average is figured on a per at bat basis. It's not a counting stat. No one is hurt or helped by playing extra games when it comes to a per stat.

BiZmaRK

10-02-2008, 07:40 PM

John Paciorek loves you
Who is John Paciorek?

BiZmaRK

10-02-2008, 07:41 PM

why did the Sox - Tigers game ans the Sox - Twins games have umpires along both outfield lines ? Are these regular season games ?
Apparently the decision to have six umpires instead of four is based on umpire availability and not on the rule book.

Rennie Stennett

10-02-2008, 08:35 PM

Apparently the decision to have six umpires instead of four is based on umpire availability and not on the rule book.

Thanks. I think it's pretty cool having them down the lines...:)

RuthMayBond

10-02-2008, 08:39 PM

Who is John Paciorek?

A guy who has "truly meaningful baseball stats" like "those figured on a "per" basis. Per plate appearance is the best "per" for batters and per inning pitched is the best "per" for pitchers."

"All these counting stats" of other players "need to be tossed aside, as they only mislead the less than astute baseball fans."

BiZmaRK

10-03-2008, 04:55 PM

A guy who has "truly meaningful baseball stats" like "those figured on a "per" basis. Per plate appearance is the best "per" for batters and per inning pitched is the best "per" for pitchers."

"All these counting stats" of other players "need to be tossed aside, as they only mislead the less than astute baseball fans."
I gather you think I'm not familiar with the concept of "sample size".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paciorek

Honus Wagner Rules

10-03-2008, 05:14 PM

Who is John Paciorek?

He was one game wonder. In 1963 he played one game for the Houston Colt-45s as an 18 year old. He went 3 for 3, with two walks, 3 RBI, 4 R. Due to back problems that was the only major game he ever played. He ended up with a career line of 1.000/1.000/1.000, 495 OPS+. I actually grew up watching his younger brother, Tom, in the 1970s and 80s. Tom played 18 seasons in the majors hitting .282/.325/.415. Another brother, Jim, played 48 games in 1987 hitting .228/.302/.337.

RuthMayBond

10-03-2008, 06:26 PM

I gather you think I'm not familiar with the concept of "sample size".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_PaciorekI gather you think we're not familiar with the concept of longevity

BiZmaRK

10-03-2008, 06:28 PM

I gather you think we're not familiar with the concept of longevity
Longevity has more to do with multi-year careers and not the difference between playing 161 & 163 games.

DownUnderDodger

10-03-2008, 06:59 PM

RuthMayBond

10-06-2008, 09:10 AM

I gather you think I'm not familiar with the concept of "sample size".
You never even implied it in your quote above

spark240

10-06-2008, 02:06 PM

my feeling is that the regular season for all teams is 162 games therefore any playoff for a LDS berth should be classed as a playoff game, as they are in fact involved in a playoff after completion of the 162 game regular season.

Not all teams play 162 games; often there are rainouts and such which are never played, or never completed.

A game 163 is a regular season game because it is required for the completion of the regular season. That's the point of it--to decide the regular season result in cases where 162 was not sufficient.

When we tally World Series stats, do we distinguish between numbers accrued in seven-game Series versus those accrued in fewer games?

BiZmaRK

10-06-2008, 06:55 PM

When we tally World Series stats, do we distinguish between numbers accrued in seven-game Series versus those accrued in fewer games?
By that rationale, the playoff game should be a post-season game. One extra post-season game won't hurt, would it?

slugger33

10-06-2008, 07:07 PM

I like the idea of counting as a post-season game. I know there have been examples, but let's say someone hits their 74th homer in the tiebreaker? Would you really want them to have the record?

dgarza

10-06-2008, 08:21 PM

A game 163 is a regular season game because it is required for the completion of the regular season. That's the point of it--to decide the regular season result in cases where 162 was not sufficient.

What it comes down to is that everybody is afraid of ties for 1st place teams.
So what if there's a tie of 1st place teams?
Ideally, they should be called "post season" because they are not part of the "regular" season. The games decide who continues. That does not make it "regular". It's not about "not having ties". There have been plenty of ties in the past, but all for non-1st place teams, and there where no tie-breaking games for them. It's a special game given only to teams who are best. That seems pretty "post season" to me. The whole point of the extra game is to see who continues towards World Championship. It's not "regular season" oriented at all.
I'm not sure why people are assuming they are regular season games. There's nothing inherently "regular season" about them.

All in all, not worth changing anything at this point.

Uncle Charlie

10-06-2008, 08:36 PM

spark240

10-06-2008, 08:40 PM

Curious that this apparently small issue has gotten so much attention...

The whole point of the extra game is to see who continues towards World Championship. It's not "regular season" oriented at all.

And what is the point of the regular season?

When we tally World Series stats, do we distinguish between numbers accrued in seven-game Series versus those accrued in fewer games?

By that rationale, the playoff game should be a post-season game. One extra post-season game won't hurt, would it?

Uh, no, but that wasn't my point. A tiebreaker (or more than one) is part of the logic of the regular season, just as the logic of each postseason series is intact regardless of how many games end up being played.

The problem some people seem to have is whether to include the tiebreaking game's numbers in with the rest of the season, not whether to include them with the postseason.

dgarza

10-06-2008, 08:41 PM

To me, postseason means having a predetermined number of teams included, so a tiebreaker game to me is just a one-game extension of the regular season for the purposes of determining who reaches the postseason.Of course, one could say that the regular season is a predetermined number of games, and that postseason is that group of indeterminate number games that determine the World Champ.

dgarza

10-06-2008, 08:46 PM

Although, I could see tie-breaking games being more "regular season" if the 2 tied 1st place teams played other teams at random (rather than necessarily themselves). It's the fact that only 2 special teams play special games that makes it "irregular".

dgarza

10-06-2008, 08:54 PM

And what is the point of the regular season?

With the way divisions are set up these day, I often wonder that myself too.

Uncle Charlie

10-06-2008, 09:36 PM

Of course, one could say that the regular season is a predetermined number of games, and that postseason is that group of indeterminate number games that determine the World Champ.Good point, but my main point was that since the postseason has a predetermined number of teams, I don't think a team that loses a tiebreaker should be considered to have made the postseason. I think maybe there should be different concepts of postseason GAMES and postseason TEAMS: a tiebreaker game is a postseason game but the team that loses isn't a postseason team.

spark240

10-06-2008, 09:37 PM

a tiebreaker game is a postseason game but the team that loses isn't a postseason team.

:faint:

This has really gone over the edge... :rolleyes:

Avg_Hr_Rbi

10-06-2008, 09:55 PM

Should a tiebreaker game be counted as post-season or regular season?

post season imho, but greater then this a tie breaker like Twins vs. CWS just shows that the MLB season is just toooooooo long....I mean sometimes it takes 162gms to get a division winner and now it takes 1 more game......similiar to the Padres vs. Rockies last season.........:ughh

dgarza

10-07-2008, 12:03 AM

Good point, but my main point was that since the postseason has a predetermined number of teams, I think, for me, this is a sticking point, the predetermined number of teams in the post-season. For me, 162 games has always been the regular season constant, since I have only been around since that was true. Yet, in my lifetime, it is the post-season (not the regular season) which has changed. So, to me, it is the post-season which is the most malleable, it is the post-season which is less predetermined historically than the regular season.

BiZmaRK

10-07-2008, 01:07 AM

Good point, but my main point was that since the postseason has a predetermined number of teams, I don't think a team that loses a tiebreaker should be considered to have made the postseason. I think maybe there should be different concepts of postseason GAMES and postseason TEAMS: a tiebreaker game is a postseason game but the team that loses isn't a postseason team.
There is a simple fix to that. There is the tiebreaker game and then there are the playoffs. Yes, the tiebreaker game is by definition a "playoff". When I ask if it should be post-season or regular season, "post-season" means anything other than regular season. It doesn't necessarily mean that the losing team is counted as a playoff team or that they made the post-season. It should just be a means of breaking a tie. There is no real reason why the stats of a tiebreaker game should count as regular season stats or that the game should be counted in the regular season standings.

After all, last year's Colorado-San Diego game and this year's Minnesota-Chicago game weren't listed in the regular season schedule.

It sort of raises the question to what degree MLB has the power to amend the regular season schedule after the beginning of the season.

RuthMayBond

10-07-2008, 07:13 AM

The post-seasoners have never really been able to answer posts 2 & 16

dgarza

10-07-2008, 07:15 AM

Why would you count them as post season when they decide the outcome of the regular season?
To outcome IS decided. It's a tie. Pretty simple.
But, "Oh, No, we can't have a tie". Although a tie is truely what happened. That's the truest picture of the season.

The regular season should show who a team does against it's division/league. A tie-breaker exists outside of that system.
As I had said before, a truer extension of the regular season to resolve 1st place ties would involve the possibility of playing any team in the league or division. Because doing that would be a pain to those out of contention, pitting the 2 top teams against each other is more practicle. But that also puts the game in a post-season atmosphere and motive.

dgarza

10-07-2008, 07:18 AM

If it was a playoff game....they wouldn't be playing it....because they'd be in the playoffs....They would be playing it. They'd just call it by a different name. But they would still play the game.
By saying "they wouldn't be playing it....because they'd be in the playoffs" suggests that the definition of "playoffs" involves games not played :ughh

dgarza

10-07-2008, 07:19 AM

The post-seasoners have never really been able to answer posts 2 & 16There. Done.

The reason nobody answered them is because they were pretty much saying "they are not playoff games because I say they aren't".
How does one work with that logic?

RuthMayBond

10-07-2008, 07:26 AM

To outcome IS decided. :noidea:shrug:

RuthMayBond

10-07-2008, 07:26 AM

There. Done.

The reason nobody answered them is because they were pretty much saying "they are not playoff games because I say they aren't".
How does one work with that logic?Which is MUCH worse than those who say they are playoff games because they say they are

dgarza

10-07-2008, 08:06 AM

Which is MUCH worse than those who say they are playoff games because they say they areI think I'm the only one who actually gave reasonably articulated reasons why I'm on the side of the fence I'm on.

RuthMayBond

10-07-2008, 08:08 AM

I think I'm the only one who actually gave reasonably articulated reasons why I'm on the side of the fence I'm on.And you agree with yourself, so it's unanimous

F1ghtinPhils

10-07-2008, 09:11 AM

I can not believe that this topic has generated this kind of discussion. It's a regular season game and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way it is.

Just out of curiosity, is it easy for somebody to figure out which team played the most innings during the 2008 regular season and which team played the least amount? Just curious as to the difference.

ipitch

10-07-2008, 10:09 AM

I think it would be better if they counted as post-season games because people don't generally care about post-season stats. The fact that Andy Pettitte has 2 more post-season hits than Ernie Banks shows you how meaningless they are.

Regular season stats are another story. Wouldn't it be best if every team played exactly 162 games every regular season? So, why not do what you can to keep it that way?

RuthMayBond

10-07-2008, 10:17 AM

I think it would be better if they counted as post-season games because people don't generally care about post-season stats. Paging Yankee fans . . .
People don't care about who wins tiebreakers?

<The fact that Andy Pettitte has 2 more post-season hits than Ernie Banks shows you how meaningless they are.>

Look at all the guys who have more HR than Ty Cobb, or guys with more wins than Koufax ...

ipitch

10-07-2008, 10:33 AM

Paging Yankee fans . . .
People don't care about who wins tiebreakers?

Huh? I was referring to individual post-season stats. Regular season numbers, like 191 RBI, and 130 SB. Many people know those numbers. Now, how many people know the post-season records for those stats? :ughh

<The fact that Andy Pettitte has 2 more post-season hits than Ernie Banks shows you how meaningless they are.>

Look at all the guys who have more HR than Ty Cobb, or guys with more wins than Koufax ...

Non-pitchers have more wins than Koufax?

RuthMayBond

10-07-2008, 10:50 AM

Non-pitchers have more wins than Koufax?Now who in the world ever said that? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

bluezebra

10-07-2008, 12:51 PM

Should a tiebreaker game be counted as post-season or regular season?

A tiebreaker is no different than extra innings in a ballgame.

Bob

RuthMayBond

10-07-2008, 12:53 PM

A tiebreaker is no different than extra innings in a ballgame.

BobRegular-season, or post-season ballgame? :think::hide:

F1ghtinPhils

10-07-2008, 05:56 PM

Wouldn't it be best if every team played exactly 162 games every regular season? So, why not do what you can to keep it that way?

In the national league in 2008 both the Mets and the D-Backs each played 162 games, however the Mets played an additional 30 innings. That equals an additional 3.33 games. The occasional tie breaker is basically meaningless as all teams don't play the same amount of ball anyway.

DownUnderDodger

10-07-2008, 09:53 PM

.....and the bottom line is that this whole argument seems to be all about stats. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

My argument is that after 162 regular season games the positions of the teams as far as playoff berths are decided, however if there are 2 teams locked together that decision is not final. Therefore an extraordinary playoff game is required to decided which of these tied teams at the end of the regular season is relegated to their television sets and which team moves into the normal playoffs .

If it is all about statistics maybe there should be a new set of statistics which are outside the regular season stats and the playoff stats....these could be called the extraordinary playoff stats in accordance with the need for the extraordinary playoff game. After all the players who play that extra game get an advantage over those who only play 162 games

And some teams don't play all 162 games because of rainouts, because obviously those games end up not counting towards a playoff berth in the long run so they are useless.......however if stats are so important why aren't these games played so the players have the same opportunity to improve their stats as those who played all 162 games? :D

Hey RMB, I know my side of the :debate: is the right side.....just ask me :rofl:

EdTarbusz

10-07-2008, 10:25 PM

Huh? I was referring to individual post-season stats. Regular season numbers, like 191 RBI, and 130 SB. Many people know those numbers. Now, how many people know the post-season records for those stats? :ughh

Like how Babe Ruth hit 60 HRs in 1927 when his team played 155 games?

dgarza

10-08-2008, 12:31 AM

And some teams don't play all 162 games because of rainouts, because obviously those games end up not counting towards a playoff berth in the long run so they are useless.......however if stats are so important why aren't these games played so the players have the same opportunity to improve their stats as those who played all 162 games? :D
Interesting. If a player had 262 hits or 73 HRs at the end of a 161 game season, but played for a non-contending team, would there be a big stink or an *? Would there be an effort to play the 162nd game to give that 1 player a chance to break the record?

Captain Cold Nose

10-08-2008, 05:54 AM

I think I'm the only one who actually gave reasonably articulated reasons why I'm on the side of the fence I'm on.

I thought Bosox Rule put it perfectly. It didn't need more articulation than that. Neither team won enough over 162 games to make the postseason. So they get one more chance to make the postseason.

dgarza

10-08-2008, 06:39 AM

I thought Bosox Rule put it perfectly. It didn't need more articulation than that. Neither team won enough over 162 games to make the postseason. So they get one more chance to make the postseason.
I'm sorry. There were 1 or 2 others who did make points (I forget who at this point). Uncle Charlie being one of them.

RuthMayBond

10-08-2008, 07:54 AM

Hey RMB, I know my side of the :debate: is the right side.....just ask me :rofl:

No need to, I'll just take your word for it :rolleyes:

BiZmaRK

10-08-2008, 08:39 AM

A tiebreaker is no different than extra innings in a ballgame.

Bob
Extra innings don't count as an extra game in the standings or the record books.

Captain Cold Nose

10-08-2008, 08:40 AM

I'm sorry. There were 1 or 2 others who did make points (I forget who at this point). Uncle Charlie being one of them.

Got it. Yes, the rationale on some of these is a little lacking.

Really, if the chief concern is individual stats, that to me is not a concern. The extra game has zero to due with individual stats and those shouldn't be considered as a reason to change the schedule purpose of the game.

RuthMayBond

10-08-2008, 08:41 AM

Extra innings don't count as an extra game in the standings or the record books.Not literally but an 18-inning game counts as nine extra innings of pitching & hitting towards the record books

BiZmaRK

10-08-2008, 08:43 AM

Interesting. If a player had 262 hits or 73 HRs at the end of a 161 game season, but played for a non-contending team, would there be a big stink or an *? Would there be an effort to play the 162nd game to give that 1 player a chance to break the record?
If under normal circumstances, there is no need to play the game, then no extra measures should be made if a record is at stake. I'd say if they played the makeup 162nd game when it wasn't necessary and the record were broken in that game, then I'd say an asterisk may be in order. But I'm against asterisks in the first place.

How about the revenue teams miss out on because of playing just 161 games? Shouldn't they be more concerned with that than with individual records?