Catching the Dodgers

[LoveAngelos]

They can't catch the Dodgers and they can't hit the Dodgers

[bluestreak]

I feel like if you win more games than other division winners, you should be rewarded for being a better team.

If the schedule were balanced, I maybe would agree with you. But if you’re going to have the divisions, there should be some significance to winning them.

I’d be a fan of division-less baseball though.

[Slateman]

If the schedule were balanced, I maybe would agree with you. But if you’re going to have the divisions, there should be some significance to winning them.

I’d be a fan of division-less baseball though.

Being a wild card team in a team that has a division winner and still winning more games than the other two division winners makes you the better team and your division was probably much harder.

Case in point, the Diamondbacks. The NL West is far more competitive than the NL East or NL Central

[Minty Fresh]

I feel like if you win more games than other division winners, you should be rewarded for being a better team.

That's subjective. 

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Standings for home field - All MLB
      Team      Record GB             Clinched Division?
1. Dodgers   96-54   ---         No  (D-backs 9.5 GB)
2. Cleveland 93-57     3             Yes
3. Houston    91-58    4.5          Yes
4.            90-59     5.5         Yes 
5.  Boston     86-64    10           No  (NYY 3 GB)
6.  ChiCubs   83-66    12.5         No (Mil 2 GB, St L 8 GB)

Tragic numbers for - for 1st - 8, for 2d - 11, for 3d - 13.
Magic numbers for   - for NL Central - 7, for AL East - 9.

[Slateman]

That's subjective. 

So is winning the division.

[bluestreak]

So is winning the division.

Ummm. You play the same schedule and the winner is purely determined by who wins the most games. That’s the exact opposite of “subjective.”

[Minty Fresh]

Ummm. You play the same schedule and the winner is purely determined by who wins the most games. That’s the exact opposite of “subjective.”

Somebody gets it.

[spidernat]

Ummm. You play the same schedule and the winner is purely determined by who wins the most games. That’s the exact opposite of “subjective.”

That's within the division. Winning one division can be and often is easier than winning another division. I think that is what Slateman means.

[bluestreak]

That's within the division. Winning one division can be and often is easier than winning another division. I think that is what Slateman means.

That’s why I want divisionless baseball with balanced schedules. But as long as divisions exists and the schedule is as it is, there should be some benefit for winning it.

[Minty Fresh]

That's within the division. Winning one division can be and often is easier than winning another division. I think that is what Slateman means.

No it isn't. 

At the end of the day, it's immaterial what division you play in.  If you win, you win.  "Better" is a subjective term - whether you're talking about a "better" team or a "better" division.

[mitlen]

That's within the division. Winning one division can be and often is easier than winning another division. I think that is what Slateman means.

Let's just go back to the way it was done in 1968.    AL/NL; one pennant winner in each; World Series   ...  Voila   

[spidernat]

That’s why I want divisionless baseball with balanced schedules. But as long as divisions exists and the schedule is as it is, there should be some benefit for winning it.

I don't disagree.

No it isn't. 

At the end of the day, it's immaterial what division you play in.  If you win, you win.  "Better" is a subjective term - whether you're talking about a "better" team or a "better" division.

That's ridiculous. Now you're being just like Slateman. You talk as if there is no such thing as a better team or a better division.

Let's just go back to the way it was done in 1968.    AL/NL; one pennant winner in each; World Series   ...  Voila   

The Nats would've played in the WS in 2012 and 2014 under that scenario but not this season.

[mitlen]

The Nats would've played in the WS in 2012 and 2014 under that scenario but not this season.

That's two more appearances than we have.       

[tomterp]

The Nats would've played in the WS in 2012 and 2014 under that scenario but not this season.

Except it wasn't a balanced schedule, so we don't really know, do we?   

[spidernat]

Except it wasn't a balanced schedule, so we don't really know, do we?   

True. But in 2012 the NL east was the better division in the NL (Minty be damned).

[aspenbubba]

4.5 back

[Slateman]

Ummm. You play the same schedule and the winner is purely determined by who wins the most games. That’s the exact opposite of “subjective.”

No it isn't. 

At the end of the day, it's immaterial what division you play in.  If you win, you win.  "Better" is a subjective term - whether you're talking about a "better" team or a "better" division.

It's pretty subjective who ends up in a tough division.

Let's put it this way, which division do you think it would be more difficult to win 95 games in right now? Do you think the Nats would have this many wins if they replaced the Giants in the NL West? Or the Dodgers? I don't.

My point is that if you win 100 games and the division winner wins a 101, and you manage to beat the division winner in the NLDS, shouldn't you get home field advantage against a team from another division that won 85 games? Does the team who won the most games deserve home field advantage?

[bluestreak]

It's pretty subjective who ends up in a tough division.

Let's put it this way, which division do you think it would be more difficult to win 95 games in right now? Do you think the Nats would have this many wins if they replaced the Giants in the NL West? Or the Dodgers? I don't.

The Nats have a better record vs. the NL west than they do against the NL east. So you don’t know. And that’s the point.

[Slateman]

The Nats have a better record vs. the NL west than they do against the NL east. So you don’t know. And that’s the point.

You don't. And you can only go by who won or loss the most. So why should a team that won more games not get home field advantage?

[Natsinpwc]

You don't. And you can only go by who won or loss the most. So why should a team that won more games not get home field advantage?

Have to agree. I believe the NBA Re-seeds after each round? In any event it makes sense to re-seed all else being equal.

[expos1994]

Let's just go back to the way it was done in 1968.    AL/NL; one pennant winner in each; World Series   ...  Voila   

Aka... Make Baseball Boring Again

The division split and the addition of the wildcard way back in 1995 or thereabouts was the best thing baseball ever did.  Suddenly a lot more teams are playing meaningful games into Sep.

The 2nd wildcard made things even more interesting even later into the season. There's still a handful of team in the AL wildcard race still clinging to hope. The only thing they need to fix there is to make the wildcard a 3 game series. 1 and done works for basketball and football, but not baseball.

Strength of divisions is a cyclical thing. One year your division might be bad, then 2 years later it's the best in the league. They could maybe cut back on intra-divisional games a little and add more against the West and Central. But who wants the Nats making several West Coast road trips every year? Plus a lot of NL Central games are blacked out for me on mlb.tv.

[Ray D]

Aka... Make Baseball Boring Again

The division split and the addition of the wildcard way back in 1995 or thereabouts was the best thing baseball ever did.  Suddenly a lot more teams are playing meaningful games into Sep.

The 2nd wildcard made things even more interesting even later into the season. There's still a handful of team in the AL wildcard race still clinging to hope. The only thing they need to fix there is to make the wildcard a 3 game series.

 I agree with all of this, I like things as they are, I would make a change here and there the most important being the wildcard series.  The more you make thing "fair and even" the more boring the result.   I much prefer interesting if not completely fair, vs. fair and boring.

[HalfSmokes]

That’s why I want divisionless baseball with balanced schedules. But as long as divisions exists and the schedule is as it is, there should be some benefit for winning it.

divisions breed rivalries and help keep a long season interesting. Basketball made a huge mistake de-emphasizing divisions

[varoadking]

divisions breed rivalries and help keep a long season interesting. Basketball and hockey huge mistakes de-emphasizing divisions

The NBA and NHL play half as many games.