756*

[hoyarooter]

gigafan99 said:

Is it OK for me to think he juiced, would not have gotten to 756 without it, and that he's still a better power hitter than Aaron?

No offense to Hank, but if an unjuiced Bonds had less travel, fewer pitchers, fewer teams, and fewer actual types of pitches to see I think he does just fine versus Aaron.

So yeah, he's a big fat cheater. But I'll just think of skinny Barry and the 1990s when he was the best hitter in an era with other great hitters like Griffey and Thomas.

I believe reasonable men can differ on this, but to me, the answer to your question is no. I certainly agree that Bonds is a great player, but how many times did he even hit 40 home runs in a season prior to his "transformation?" Power-wise, I think of Bonds more like Stan Musial - and I hope no one takes that as an insult, as Musial was my all time favorite athlete.

[RDF]

dajuan said:

excitableboy said:

I agree in principle, but isn't this rigidity and geographically-biased approach exactly what people are killing the NBA over right now?

Remember when the AL Central was the laughing stock of the league? Can you imagine the fit that the Angels/Red Sox of the world would raise if their teams had to play an elimination game in order to have the right to play the best team in the league, while the lowly Indians/Twins get a free pass to the real playoffs?

The only tweaking of the wild card should involve more teams, in the same way that the NFL does it. A one game playoff is such a crapshoot that it would cheapen the rest of the season. What if one team finished 5 games better than the other "alternate wild card" but the team that finished 5 games back manages to win the one game playoff? It could be very damaging to the league and to the notion that every game matters.

In response to RDF, how many games do you think the wild card winner should host? Do you think the wild card winner should have to play all of its playoff games on the road? I don't understand. Perhaps a 7 game first round would be better with the wild card winner hosting games 3, 4 and 6. Although to do this they would probably have to shorten the regular season (which many are calling for regardless of playoff format). The notion of shortening the season doesn't make sense for the people in control (even though many players support it) because why would every owner want to have 4 fewer home games? It would also make the single season stats of the 162 game era even more inflated than they already are.

Wildcard team should host 1 game in Best of 5--if they win, make them prove they are better team--which in some cases--like '04 Red Sox for instance--they were. I don't think it would've mattered where they played--they were the best team in baseball that year--despite Yankees winning the East. I still was shocked Yankees were up 3-0 to begin with in all honesty that year. Not to take away from the choke angle--because Yanks did gag--but I never felt good about that team pitching wise. Vasquez, Brown were just too unpredictable all season.

I just don't see why a team who can't win a division should be rewarded-for every Red Sox in '04, there are MUTT teams who get in--and if all it takes to steal homefield is 1 win, how is that an advantage to win your division over course of 162 games in a 5 game set? I'd also allow the Division winner to decide which game they'd like to play on the road--be it Game 1 and then have a possible 4 straight at home or try to get W at home in 4 and give wildcard the Game 5 on road. They'd have to choose before Playoffs began--like they do with coin toss for possible one game playoff scenarios--so you know who is hosting.

I have no problem with wildcards getting in--but the hardest part should be Round 1 for them--and often it's easy for the underdog and over the course of 162 games, they should not be rewarded in Round 1 for stealing one game and the team who won a division being at a disadvantage. For those who say the better team should win no matter what--my response--exactly--so if the Wildcard team is better-they shouldn't have a problem playing away from home for 4 of the 5 games.

[dajuan]

rdf said:

dajuan said:

The only tweaking of the wild card should involve more teams, in the same way that the NFL does it. A one game playoff is such a crapshoot that it would cheapen the rest of the season. What if one team finished 5 games better than the other "alternate wild card" but the team that finished 5 games back manages to win the one game playoff? It could be very damaging to the league and to the notion that every game matters.

In response to RDF, how many games do you think the wild card winner should host? Do you think the wild card winner should have to play all of its playoff games on the road? I don't understand. Perhaps a 7 game first round would be better with the wild card winner hosting games 3, 4 and 6. Although to do this they would probably have to shorten the regular season (which many are calling for regardless of playoff format). The notion of shortening the season doesn't make sense for the people in control (even though many players support it) because why would every owner want to have 4 fewer home games? It would also make the single season stats of the 162 game era even more inflated than they already are.

Wildcard team should host 1 game in Best of 5--if they win, make them prove they are better team--which in some cases--like '04 Red Sox for instance--they were. I don't think it would've mattered where they played--they were the best team in baseball that year--despite Yankees winning the East. I still was shocked Yankees were up 3-0 to begin with in all honesty that year. Not to take away from the choke angle--because Yanks did gag--but I never felt good about that team pitching wise. Vasquez, Brown were just too unpredictable all season.

I just don't see why a team who can't win a division should be rewarded-for every Red Sox in '04, there are MUTT teams who get in--and if all it takes to steal homefield is 1 win, how is that an advantage to win your division over course of 162 games in a 5 game set? I'd also allow the Division winner to decide which game they'd like to play on the road--be it Game 1 and then have a possible 4 straight at home or try to get W at home in 4 and give wildcard the Game 5 on road. They'd have to choose before Playoffs began--like they do with coin toss for possible one game playoff scenarios--so you know who is hosting.

I have no problem with wildcards getting in--but the hardest part should be Round 1 for them--and often it's easy for the underdog and over the course of 162 games, they should not be rewarded in Round 1 for stealing one game and the team who won a division being at a disadvantage. For those who say the better team should win no matter what--my response--exactly--so if the Wildcard team is better-they shouldn't have a problem playing away from home for 4 of the 5 games.

Your proposal is nothing short of ridiculous. It would obviously never work in practice because the wild card winner would need to be guaranteed the revenue and prestige of hosting at least one playoff game. It is also unfair in principle because, as pointed out before, it's often easier to win a bad division than to win the wild card. So why reward a division winning team that's already been rewarded all year by playing in a terrible division?

[ExcitableBoy]

rdf said:

I just don't see why a team who can't win a division should be rewarded-for every Red Sox in '04, there are MUTT teams who get in--and if all it takes to steal homefield is 1 win, how is that an advantage to win your division over course of 162 games in a 5 game set? I'd also allow the Division winner to decide which game they'd like to play on the road--be it Game 1 and then have a possible 4 straight at home or try to get W at home in 4 and give wildcard the Game 5 on road. They'd have to choose before Playoffs began--like they do with coin toss for possible one game playoff scenarios--so you know who is hosting.

A wild card team has made the World Series each of the past five years.

There might be some MUTTs in there, I guess, but a wild card team doesn't just have to beat out the 3-5 other teams in its division, but rather every non-division leader in its league. You therefore get some clubs playing very high caliber ball at the end of the season. I guess you could make it difficult for them to get out of round 1, but they seem to have no trouble playing good enough ball to also get out of round 2, so it's not like there's some major problem of schlub teams beating the 1927 Yankees in the wild card round only to crap the bed in round two.

[bubbrubbhoya]

The wild card doesn't need to be changed. It creates a chance for a good team to overcome the random disadvantages of being placed in a strong geographical division while maintaining the exclusivity of the MLB playoffs.

Arguing that division winners somehow lose home-field advantage is silly, because the division winners (even if they are worse teams) always get game 5 at home, which is a huge advantage.

As dajuan mentioned, the best way to improve the wild-card round is to expand it to 7 games. The most deserving team always wins a 7 game series. Maybe not the best (see: Cardinals, 2006), but the most deserving, and that's what the playoffs come down to in the end.

[SFHoya99]

It will never happen revenue wise, but I'd go back to no Wild Card. Maybe even no divisions. Now that's a pennant race!

[RDF]

dajuan said:

rdf said:

Wildcard team should host 1 game in Best of 5--if they win, make them prove they are better team--which in some cases--like '04 Red Sox for instance--they were. I don't think it would've mattered where they played--they were the best team in baseball that year--despite Yankees winning the East. I still was shocked Yankees were up 3-0 to begin with in all honesty that year. Not to take away from the choke angle--because Yanks did gag--but I never felt good about that team pitching wise. Vasquez, Brown were just too unpredictable all season.

I just don't see why a team who can't win a division should be rewarded-for every Red Sox in '04, there are MUTT teams who get in--and if all it takes to steal homefield is 1 win, how is that an advantage to win your division over course of 162 games in a 5 game set? I'd also allow the Division winner to decide which game they'd like to play on the road--be it Game 1 and then have a possible 4 straight at home or try to get W at home in 4 and give wildcard the Game 5 on road. They'd have to choose before Playoffs began--like they do with coin toss for possible one game playoff scenarios--so you know who is hosting.

I have no problem with wildcards getting in--but the hardest part should be Round 1 for them--and often it's easy for the underdog and over the course of 162 games, they should not be rewarded in Round 1 for stealing one game and the team who won a division being at a disadvantage. For those who say the better team should win no matter what--my response--exactly--so if the Wildcard team is better-they shouldn't have a problem playing away from home for 4 of the 5 games.

Your proposal is nothing short of ridiculous. It would obviously never work in practice because the wild card winner would need to be guaranteed the revenue and prestige of hosting at least one playoff game. It is also unfair in principle because, as pointed out before, it's often easier to win a bad division than to win the wild card. So why reward a division winning team that's already been rewarded all year by playing in a terrible division?

It's also ridiculous to have a 162 game schedule and have a 5 game opening playoff series where 3 teams who won their division have no advantage over the team who didn't. The fact 5 years in a row Wildcards have played in World Series is far too much--and it's why you don't see Basketball have that problem. The regular season should matter--and while you might have a better record--you could argue that 2nd best team in a 2 team division like the AL East has primarily been since 2000 is not as tough as playing in AL Central with better teams top to bottom--so their records won't be as good playing more competitive games over the course of a season.

[bubbrubbhoya]

rdf said:

It's also ridiculous to have a 162 game schedule and have a 5 game opening playoff series where 3 teams who won their division have no advantage over the team who didn't. The fact 5 years in a row Wildcards have played in World Series is far too much--and it's why you don't see Basketball have that problem. The regular season should matter--and while you might have a better record--you could argue that 2nd best team in a 2 team division like the AL East has primarily been since 2000 is not as tough as playing in AL Central with better teams top to bottom--so their records won't be as good playing more competitive games over the course of a season.

Ahahahaha! Are you seriously holding up basketball's system as a shining beacon for pro-sports leagues? No offense, but you are off your rocker with that argument.

[dajuan]

I don't understand how you can say that the team hosting 3 of the 5 games has no advantage. It's the same thing they do in basketball or hockey. It's called home field advantage in baseball. The home team gets to host the majority of the games in a 5 game series, as well as the privilege of hosting the first two games and the last game. That is an advantage.

Why do you hold such allegiance to the teams that win divisions and such disdain for wild card teams? When you were a child were you molested by a wild card winner?

I would never say that it's a "problem" that the wild card winner has made the World Series 5 years in a row. It's exciting. The wild card teams earned the right to get out of the first round and then they earned the right to play in the World Series. As excitableboy said, this "problem" rears its ugly head because the wild card team is often peaking at the right time and is very hot in September and October.

I really don't understand your issue here. You really think it would be more fair and reasonable to have a best of 5 first round series in which wild card team could win once on the road and still not get the chance to play a single home playoff game? That scenario could reasonably occur in your proposed plan. You think that's better than the current setup? That's a better plan than a best of 7 first round series? Can you imagine this happening? Fans of the wild card team would go ballistic.

[Hank Scorpio]

i think they should expand the first round to a 7 game series, like the nba did. make it a 2-2-1-1-1 if possible, travel days be darned. remember when it used to be 5 games in a 2-3 format? que ridiculo

i am not a huge fan of the wild card in the current 5 game system, if only b/c, hypothetically, a team with 5 good starters can have their rotational depth essentially nullified by a team with 2 aces and not a whole lot else. i'd like to see it go to a 7 game first round series, like the other 2 rounds.

i was initially not thrilled with the wild card coming into play, but the Yanks/M's series in '95 sold me. first time in my life they made the postseason [born in 80, and i am not counting that split season bullcorn of 81], it was pretty awesome to experience. obviously we have the financial wherewithal to be in the division hunt every year, but if a smaller market team can make the playoffs that way and energize their fanbase for the month of October, i'm all for it.

dajuan said:

I don't understand how you can say that the team hosting 3 of the 5 games has no advantage. It's the same thing they do in basketball or hockey. It's called home field advantage in baseball. The home team gets to host the majority of the games in a 5 game series, as well as the privilege of hosting the first two games and the last game. That is an advantage.

Why do you hold such allegiance to the teams that win divisions and such disdain for wild card teams? When you were a child were you molested by a wild card winner?

I would never say that it's a "problem" that the wild card winner has made the World Series 5 years in a row. It's exciting. The wild card teams earned the right to get out of the first round and then they earned the right to play in the World Series. As excitableboy said, this "problem" rears its ugly head because the wild card team is often peaking at the right time and is very hot in September and October.

I really don't understand your issue here. You really think it would be more fair and reasonable to have a best of 5 first round series in which wild card team could win once on the road and still not get the chance to play a single home playoff game? That scenario could reasonably occur in your proposed plan. You think that's better than the current setup? That's a better plan than a best of 7 first round series? Can you imagine this happening? Fans of the wild card team would go ballistic.

[RDF]

In the NBA--the best teams have advantage. Whether you like basketball or not--they are rewarded for their efforts during the regular season--which should be even more when you play 162 games--not less. Any team can win 3 of 5 in baseball--bad teams can do that. I just feel if they stick to that format--they should reward the home team by giving them 4 out of the 5 at home as an incentive/reward.

[ExcitableBoy]

rdf said:

In the NBA--the best teams have advantage. Whether you like basketball or not--they are rewarded for their efforts during the regular season--which should be even more when you play 162 games--not less. Any team can win 3 of 5 in baseball--bad teams can do that. I just feel if they stick to that format--they should reward the home team by giving them 4 out of the 5 at home as an incentive/reward.

Is that why the team with the 3rd most wins in the eastern conference got seeded 5th this year? One of the biggest problems with basketball playoffs are that teams are so heavily rewarded for winning their division.

If what you're trying to say is that a 5 game series doesnt necessarily identify the best team, I agree. But pitching plays a far greater role than an extra home game. For example, what if Liriano doesn't get hurt last year? Do you want to face Santana & Liriano in a five game series, even if four of the games are at your place?

[bubbrubbhoya]

rdf said:

In the NBA--the best teams have advantage. Whether you like basketball or not--they are rewarded for their efforts during the regular season--which should be even more when you play 162 games--not less. Any team can win 3 of 5 in baseball--bad teams can do that. I just feel if they stick to that format--they should reward the home team by giving them 4 out of the 5 at home as an incentive/reward.

Maybe this should be done on a graduated scale to reward the teams with the best regular seasons. For instance, if you won your division and 100 games, you get all 5 games at home and you get to choose a player on the opposite team who doesn't get to play in the series. If you won your division and 95 games, you get 5 games. If you won your division and 90 games, you get 4 games. If you won your division but had a worse record than the wild card, you get get 3 home games. As far as I can see it, this is the ONLY fair way to reorganize the wild card.

RDF, you make an incredibly compelling argument that the basketball playoffs, including their perfect division winner rewards, are the panacea for MLB, but imagine if my system was applied to basketball...it would be even more perfect! By the graduated scale, Dallas would have had 7 first round home games and Baron Davis would have been ineligible, rendering almost impossible the total fluke series win by Golden State. I can't stand injustices like that series--the Mavericks were clearly the better team based on a long and grueling regular season, so why couldn't the NBA have just declared a re-do after the series to rectify the result? I mean, what are the playoffs for if not to anoint the regular season winners?

[dajuan]

bubbrubbhoya said:

rdf said:

In the NBA--the best teams have advantage. Whether you like basketball or not--they are rewarded for their efforts during the regular season--which should be even more when you play 162 games--not less. Any team can win 3 of 5 in baseball--bad teams can do that. I just feel if they stick to that format--they should reward the home team by giving them 4 out of the 5 at home as an incentive/reward.

Maybe this should be done on a graduated scale to reward the teams with the best regular seasons. For instance, if you won your division and 100 games, you get all 5 games at home and you get to choose a player on the opposite team who doesn't get to play in the series. If you won your division and 95 games, you get 5 games. If you won your division and 90 games, you get 4 games. If you won your division but had a worse record than the wild card, you get get 3 home games. As far as I can see it, this is the ONLY fair way to reorganize the wild card.

RDF, you make an incredibly compelling argument that the basketball playoffs, including their perfect division winner rewards, are the panacea for MLB, but imagine if my system was applied to basketball...it would be even more perfect! By the graduated scale, Dallas would have had 7 first round home games and Baron Davis would have been ineligible, rendering almost impossible the total fluke series win by Golden State. I can't stand injustices like that series--the Mavericks were clearly the better team based on a long and grueling regular season, so why couldn't the NBA have just declared a re-do after the series to rectify the result. I mean, what are the playoffs for if not to anoint the regular season winners?

The amazing thing is that Bubbrubb's "Modest Proposal" is not that much more unreasonable or ludicrous than RDF's plan to "fix" the baseball playoffs.

It's a deep burn for RDF.

[RDF]

The difference is that the NBA has a system where a bad team isn't rewarded with an advancement to Conference Finals or Finals unless they EARN it--it doesn't take much to get into the LCS in Baseball--you win one opening game, you have homefield in Divisional series. In basketball--you get to play the lowest seed--in Baseball it's not that way--you have that "if two teams from same division make it--they can't play in opening round" thing--so you could be playing a superior team in the Division Series. In basketball it's 1 against 8--and if 8 pulls upset--which has happened how many times now? (TWO) They still have to play another round before they'd get to the Conference Finals. All of the series are best of 7.

Call it silly if you want--but how you can take a sport serious when the Wildcard team--who wasn't good enough to win their own division continues to get to the World Series. The NFL and NBA don't have inferior teams from regular season meeting in their championships. And they allow their top teams to face the worst/lowest seed in opening round--baseball doesn't.

[CTHoya08]

In baseball, only four teams from each league make the playoffs, not eight, as in basketball. So from the very beginning, baseball makes more of an effort to reward the better teams by limiting the playoffs to a smaller field. The fact that the NBA playoffs place the division winners in the top three seeds regardless of record does the exact opposite of what you intend; it frequently creates series where the higher seeded team receives home court advantage over a team with a better record.

A seven game series would be a much better solution to the "problem" you see with the baseball playoffs. In baseball, the starting pitcher is much more responsible for the variance from game to game than is the location. Weaker teams don't win the short series because they get two home games and the other team *only* gets three. They win because they frequently have fewer great pitchers, as opposed to more good pitchers.

Adding a fifth team to play a one-game playoff against the Wild Card winner greatly cheapens the regular season for two reasons.

First, it cheapens the accomplishment of the real Wild Card winner by forcing that team to beat a team that finished below them in the standings to get into the Divisional round. The Wild Card team cannot play the winner of its division under the current format, which prevents such a problem from occurring.

Second, it reduces the results of a 162 game season to one game. The reason why this is absurd should be fairly obvious, especially when the real Wild Card winner may have finished several games ahead of the other team.

[RDF]

Under the argument you can't play the 2nd place team in your division to "cheapen it"--well if you win your division by 20 games--why wouldn't you want to play that team? If you finish with the best record in your league--you should play the WORST team in the playoffs--be it from your division or not. Just because the AL East has Boston and NY--doesn't mean they are the best 2 teams in baseball every year. To take that element out of the equation is stupid. It's one thing if Boston were to win 110 games and finish 20 games ahead--but if you are up by double digits and you have a 2 team division--which I think AL East was for most of this decade--it's more competitive this year--then how is that presumed the "best"?

I'm all for a Best of 7 in opening round-but I'm also for the best team playing the worst record wise. Better yet--the team with best record should play the team out of the other qualifiers they had best record against--so if Boston is 12-6 against New York, and 2-8 against Angels, and 5-5 against Detroit, they should play the Yankees to open the Playoffs in a best of 7. Since Baseball won't go there--they should get 4 of the 5 games at home. You have to reward teams--and it's not rewarding them to have them open with best of 5 against a team who might be superior to the Wildcard simply because it comes from their own division.

Baseball can't hide behind "it would cheapen the sport"--they've already done that with the personnel who play it and hiding out until they got called out.

If you want to say FB and Basketball screw up by having inferior conferences and the best two teams often are from same conference--I agree--but at least the top teams from the conference advance--seeing bad teams get hot and win world titles isn't my idea of great--but each their own. The Twins won 2 championships in World Series and didn't have to win a road game. Their '91 team was a fine team--that '87 team benefitted from being in a bad division, having homefield advantage. St. Louis should've had homefield and to say it wouldn't have mattered when in 14 WS games in modern era--the Twins haven't won a single road game. It matters. So the All Star game settles it--that is just retarded. What is so difficult about having the best team/better record have homefield as it should be over course of a long season?

There is so much to discuss here and each side has points--but to say Baseball Playoffs are fine as they are and don't need to be tweaked and attack the NBA where the best team wins titles in a season--is silly. The idea of sports at the Professional level is for the best team to win--as it should be. Whether you like that team or not--they win. FB--same thing--best teams advance and win and EARN it. Baseball? They reward the teams who don't win their division more then any other sport--and some like that, I think it should be a bit harder-not impossible because as long as you are playing--you have a shot--but why is it so easy?

[kchoya]

hoyarooter said:

gigafan99 said:

Is it OK for me to think he juiced, would not have gotten to 756 without it, and that he's still a better power hitter than Aaron?

No offense to Hank, but if an unjuiced Bonds had less travel, fewer pitchers, fewer teams, and fewer actual types of pitches to see I think he does just fine versus Aaron.

So yeah, he's a big fat cheater. But I'll just think of skinny Barry and the 1990s when he was the best hitter in an era with other great hitters like Griffey and Thomas.

I believe reasonable men can differ on this, but to me, the answer to your question is no. I certainly agree that Bonds is a great player, but how many times did he even hit 40 home runs in a season prior to his "transformation?" Power-wise, I think of Bonds more like Stan Musial - and I hope no one takes that as an insult, as Musial was my all time favorite athlete.

I count 8 seasons each for Aaron and Bonds with 40 home runs. Aaron had 44 HR at age 35, Bonds had 49. Aaron 47 HR at age 37, Bonds had 46. Aaron had 40 HR at age 39, Bonds had 45.

Looks pretty similar to me.

[hoyarooter]

And if I'm not mistaken, those are the years when it's thought that Bonds became "transformed." I didn't ask how many times Bonds has hit 40 or more, but how many times prior to his alleged juicing began. I think the answer is two.

[GIGAFAN99]

hoyarooter said:

And if I'm not mistaken, those are the years when it's thought that Bonds became "transformed." I didn't ask how many times Bonds has hit 40 or more, but how many times prior to his alleged juicing began. I think the answer is two.

The answer is actually three, but let's also be fair to Bonds. He wouldn't have hit zero homers a year had he not juiced. He had averaged 37 a year the previous five. From 2000-04 he averaged an incredible 51. So Bonds probably would be closing in on 700 right about now and needing another two years to break the mark. He really could have gotten there without the 'roids.

We'll never know of course but I'm kind of annoyed by the arguments I hear against Bonds' natural power. Little-headed Barry was a slugger and he was getting walked even back in the early 90s. It was magnified by the steroids but he's not Sammy Sosa or Rafael Palmeiro who turned middling careers into hall of fame numbers with this stuff.