In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Wild card round should absolutely be one game
im sorry i was confusing...your "Superbowl" was the Redskins losing since you know that the Ravens cant win it all.
Absolutely not. That is by far the worst thing baseball has ever done.
Yup. Everyone talking right now about the Tigers being rusty because of their layoff, the team playing the WC winner will be off for at least 5 days.
No they won't. Just play a best-of-three series on Saturday and Sunday.
The one-game series is asinine.
That'd still require 4 days off, not to mention there's zero chance of a double header in the playoffs.
You need a day off after the final regular season game for any tiebreakers and you'd need a day off after the final WC game in case of inclement weather.
This post was edited by jsh 21 months ago
I think it's better to have a three game series than to have it period...so if you can't work out the logistics of three games, scale it back to the way it was with 4 teams.
It doesn't make any sense that ATL can finish 6 games in front of STL and be given a one-game sample size to survive. This isn't about the infield fly either (which was the right call)...I said this before the season started.
The one-gamer is contrived drama.
It only makes less sense than NY losing to DET in a 7 game sample size. It's the playoffs, it's all contrived drama. Win your division or there's no room to complain.
If you don't win the division you're subject to being knocked out in one game. If they had played better against the Nats in the regular season maybe that doesn't happen.
..but what is your threshold?
I'm ok with a team winning 4 games out of 7 (or in that case, 4 out of 4). Baseball is not the sport to have single elimination playoffs. The very best teams only win 60% of their games.
The NCAA playoffs in D1 baseball don't even have single elimination.
This isn't any other sport where you trot the same exact team out every single game. Baseball is a sport built around pitching ROTATIONS.
To have a one-game playoff round is beyond stupid for baseball.
I'm fine with one single elimination game between two teams who didn't win their divisions. The question, in my opinion, is not what is fair to the two wild card teams but what is fair to the teams that win their division. Forcing the top seed to wait 5 days to play doesn't seem fair and neither does having an inferior team (the WC team) have equal footing with the top seed in a 5 game series.
Give the top seed the choice then. That's their advantage.
God, people like you who see one TINY ass obstacle as a reason something can't happen are so fucking stupid.
Wait until a week before the postseason to finalize the postseason schedule. Brilliant!
I was in favor of having the WC team (from the pre 2012 version of the system) play all road games. If you can't win 3 out of five home games, you deserve to go home.
As it stands now, the team that survives the WC game, MIGHT be on an "equal footing" after they win the game (depending on which starter they had to use). It hurts the wilcard team but it doesn't necessarily help the team that plays the WC winner in the LDS.
It's a gimmick, to me.
By the way, what the hell does "Division Series" mean anyway?
This post was edited by PoorMike 21 months ago
Troy Renck @TroyRenck
Rockies have interviewed former Mets and White Sox manager Jerry Manuel
Not to go too far off-topic, but this thread is the first time I've seen someone defend the infield fly call in the Atlanta-St Louis game. Even if you think it was the right call, the very late timing of it made it clearly incorrect.
The timing didn't matter. The fact is that as soon as the shortstop settled under the ball, it become "normal effort" and it had to be called. That happened very late in the sequence, but it did happen.
The problem is, the spirit of the rule is to prevent fielders from milking runners into double plays....and we all know that there was no chnace that was going to happen on that play. The letter of the rule trampled on the spirit of the rule, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, when the call was made was exactly when the SS peeled away to let the OF take it.
It was the right call the way the rule is written.
Just win the division, that's what I'd do.
Good lord. They don't have anyone managing in the AFL that's better?
Of course the timing matters. It's supposed to be called immediately, and it wasn't. I'm not sure how that's even debatable. The rule states that it's to be called immediately upon the umpire determining that it is judged to be an infield fly. If it takes as long as it did for the umpire to determine that it's an infield fly, it's really hard to argue that it's a "normal effort" for the shortstop to catch the ball.
I've watched a lot of baseball in my life and I've literally never seen a play like that called an infield fly.
well, they did interview the giambino also
i meant that the "timing" you were initially referring to doesn't matter. It was called late in the play (which is what you contend) but it was called "immediately" after the shortstop planted underneath the ball which is all that matters.
Standing under the ball and waiting for it is normal effort. The ump didn't know that the SS was going to run the other way as soon as the batter was called out.
The whole point of the rule is to prevent runner from being goaded into a double play on a ball that is easily catchable. He was going to have an opportunity to make an easy catch (long run or not). The problem is, there was no way he'd have been able to turn a double play so the protection of the rule isn't needed.
Sux, but that is the way the rule is written.
That was mind boggling.
There's no way you can argue that a shortstop running 100 feet into the outfield is a "normal effort" for an infielder to catch a fly ball. You keep arguing that the letter of the law is paramount, but you're ignoring the fact that it's a judgment call by its definition (see Torre's statement). We all know that no one would consider that ball a "normal effort" for an infielder to catch the ball. It landed 225 feet from home plate. He's legally allowed to use judgment in determining that that ball was not an infield fly under the general understanding and intent of the rule.
The timing was about half a second before the ball hit the ground. If it takes that long for the umpire to determine that it's a normal effort, then something's wrong.
A shortstop is about, what, 130 feet from home when the pitch is thrown? So he runs 95ft and is under the ball ready to make the catch. At that point, it can be an infield fly no matter how far he ran or how late it is. He could have called it when the ball was five inches from his glove and it would have been appropriate. There's no time limit.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports