If you were waiting to find out which major league teams currently in contention would host a potential one-game playoff, you’ll have to wait until the end of the regular season. MLB GMs decided last November to eliminate the coin flip, which in the past determined which team would host a one-game playoff in the event of a tie.
Instead, the host team will be decided by a series of on-field tiebreakers, beginning with head-to-head records. If that’s tied, the next tiebreaker is the team with the highest winning percentage within the division, followed by the highest winning percentage in intra-league play during the second half of the season.
I like the change and I believe it’s an improvement over the coin flip, which seemed arbitrary and pointless. However, with three levels of on-field tiebreakers, why bother playing a tiebreaker game at all?
I know the play-in game is supposed to help generate excitement for the playoffs. But under this new system, a play-in game seems obsolete. Think about it. If two teams have the same record, but team A has the season record over team B, wouldn’t it make sense to name Team A the divisional winner without having a tiebreaker game? Why should Team A be expected to play Game 163 to prove that they are indeed the divisional winner when they already have the proven that they are the better team in the division by having the season record against their rival?
Further, what happens if Team A hosts a tiebreaker game and loses to Team B? Team A would probably feel cheated out of a division title. How many times would this scenario have to play out before owners and GMs decide the play-in game isn't such a great idea afterall.
Eliminating the coin flip is a step in the right direction, but there's more work to be done. Time will tell if the tiebreaker play-in game stands the test of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment