What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

jen said:
Because if they're trying it in the minors, that means they're thinking about it for the majors.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but maybe not.

There may be all kinds of reasons to have that rule in the minors but never implement it in the majors. First, as someone else pointed out, it's the minors and it doesn't really matter who wins or loses. Second, major league teams probably have a desire to protect pitching assets in the minors and don't need someone getting overextended in a 15 inning meaningless game.

The funny thing is, it's really a problem that has diminished over time. For over a hundred years the number of extra inning games in mlb have slowly decreased. We used to see something like 9 or 9.5% of them go to extra innings, but I think they may be down to like 7.5 or 8% now. Furthermore, two thirds of those end in either the 10th or 11th innings, which this rule is designed to do.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ace-of-play-extra-innings-20170209-story.html

They may try it in the minors, but I'm not sure we'll ever see it at the major league level.
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

Kepler said:
And replace the catcher with a couple of sticks in the ground.
Click to expand...
This coming from a Mets fan? Wasn't it Casey Stengel who infamously observed during the Mets expansion draft that the reason he had to draft a catcher first is otherwise all you're going to have is passed balls?
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

SJHovey said:
it's really a problem that has diminished over time. For over a hundred years the number of extra inning games in mlb have slowly decreased. We used to see something like 9 or 9.5% of them go to extra innings, but I think they may be down to like 7.5 or 8% now. Furthermore, two thirds of those end in either the 10th or 11th innings, which this rule is designed to do.
Click to expand...

Please tell me everyone understands the independent variable that's driving that trend.
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

Russell Jaslow said:
It's interesting you state this, because for me, the shootout didn't bother me when it was implemented and still doesn't. Which is odd, because I don't agree with the shootout. (Though, seeing it in person was more fun and entertaining than I ever thought it would be.)

However, the loser point gnaws at me like nothing else in life. Going to a three-point system would be fine with me, but what the NHL has now for their points system is complete sh*t.
Click to expand...

The 3 point system is clearly better than the NHLs, but the NHL does it their way because it offers the appearance that more teams are in the running for the playoffs. And in the NHL, all that matters is the playoffs. The 82 games are meant as nothing more than a seeding process. So if 13 or 14 teams think they have a chance as opposed to 10 or 11, more fans have to pay more attention to games that otherwise would be meaningless to them.

I could live with the shootout if the NHL, as an entity, thought that tie games drove fans away. I don't think they do, but if that is true, so be it. But if tie games are so bad, and you must have a winner (but for many different reasons you don't like the idea of endless OTs) just give 2 points to every winner (regulation, OT, SO) and zero to the losers. If the SO is so good and exciting, fans should be able to reconcile that their team needs to trudge off the ice with nothing to show for it if they can't "win" the game. Hell, in that case, we wouldn't need "points" at all, just wins and losses.
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

WeAreNDHockey said:
If the SO is so good and exciting, fans should be able to reconcile that their team needs to trudge off the ice with nothing to show for it if they can't "win" the game. Hell, in that case, we wouldn't need "points" at all, just wins and losses.
Click to expand...

The loser point exists so more teams can claim to be winning teams, which drives revenue because people follow winners. The acme of the NHL would be a system where everyone wins every game regardless of score, and then the team with the most goals is given one extra bonus point.
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

Kepler said:
Please tell me everyone understands the independent variable that's driving that trend.
Click to expand...

More scoring always leads to fewer extra inning games. Just like the lack of scoring leads to all of the NHL playoff OT games that take 2, 3, 4 or more OTs to decide a winner. When NHL teams knew how to pot 4 and 5 goals, those marathon OT games did not happen. I don't know the numbers, but I guarantee the number of triple overtime games are a lot more common now (when corrected for the number of total playoff games) than they were before the "modern" game and the Michelin Man goaltenders.
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

SJHovey said:
Maybe, but maybe not.

There may be all kinds of reasons to have that rule in the minors but never implement it in the majors. First, as someone else pointed out, it's the minors and it doesn't really matter who wins or loses. Second, major league teams probably have a desire to protect pitching assets in the minors and don't need someone getting overextended in a 15 inning meaningless game.

The funny thing is, it's really a problem that has diminished over time. For over a hundred years the number of extra inning games in mlb have slowly decreased. We used to see something like 9 or 9.5% of them go to extra innings, but I think they may be down to like 7.5 or 8% now. Furthermore, two thirds of those end in either the 10th or 11th innings, which this rule is designed to do.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ace-of-play-extra-innings-20170209-story.html

They may try it in the minors, but I'm not sure we'll ever see it at the major league level.
Click to expand...

I agree that extra innings are not the problem, but I am not convinced that MLB would never do it in the majors.

I think having bullpen cars (which is also somewhat lame, IMO) gets closer to the root of the problem than anything involving extra innings. But they are never going to make commercial breaks shorter. They would probably love to make them LONGER if it didn't delay the game.
 
Last edited:
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

WeAreNDHockey said:
More scoring always leads to fewer extra inning games.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Higher scores mean a lower probability of tying. We used to call this the Mike Schafer Postulate, but he ruined it by building a team that can score.
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

jen said:
Because if they're trying it in the minors, that means they're thinking about it for the majors.
Click to expand...

This

We get stupid ideas like this and soon they'll be doing stupid human tricks just like the NHL. "Oh, instead of extra innings we'll have the center fielder try to throw a ball into a garbage can from the warning track" or "Fastest pitch competition" or "Home run derby!!!!!!!!"

:rolleyes:

Everyone in the MLB's front office should be fired. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.
 
Re: MLB 2017: Playoffs, World Series, and Off-season.

WeAreNDHockey said:
The 3 point system is clearly better than the NHLs, but the NHL does it their way because it offers the appearance that more teams are in the running for the playoffs. And in the NHL, all that matters is the playoffs. The 82 games are meant as nothing more than a seeding process. So if 13 or 14 teams think they have a chance as opposed to 10 or 11, more fans have to pay more attention to games that otherwise would be meaningless to them.
Click to expand...

Appearance is the key word here. A couple of years ago, FiveThirtyEight.com did a mathematical analysis on whether the loser point actually keeps more teams in the playoff hunt. They found out it doesn't. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I could live with the shootout if the NHL, as an entity, thought that tie games drove fans away. I don't think they do, but if that is true, so be it. But if tie games are so bad, and you must have a winner (but for many different reasons you don't like the idea of endless OTs) just give 2 points to every winner (regulation, OT, SO) and zero to the losers. If the SO is so good and exciting, fans should be able to reconcile that their team needs to trudge off the ice with nothing to show for it if they can't "win" the game. Hell, in that case, we wouldn't need "points" at all, just wins and losses.
Click to expand...

If they have to give out a loser point, just do it for the SO loss. Not when a real goal is scored in OT. That makes no logical sense at all.

Whenever I'm watching my team play, as soon as it goes to overtime, I immediately think, "Well, at least we got a point." Then a split second later I hate the NHL for allowing me to have that thought, being forced to embrace the "Everyone gets a trophy" mentality.

A baseball thread hijacked by a hockey subject on a college hockey board. Who knew?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top