My preference is that we tie for the division, and the Twins lose a game. That leaves us with 2 chances to play for the division series as opposed to 1.
I'm not suggesting they NOT try to win it; like start Dan Straily and Matt Duffy. But if you gave me two options, and I got to choose - I think I'd pick, "second place and a wild card game."... It certainly provides greater incentive to win the division. I've never had any delusions about this year - every game feels like house money and a building block for the future. Face the pressure, learn all you can, grow stronger - and if, in the process, you keep winning... gravy.
It's dumb as ****. I'm repeating myself here, but, as dumb as the one-game WC is, the possible tie-breaker game to decide the division champ is another whole level of idiocy. You're forcing an extra game on 2 teams who made the post-season, just because they coincidentally finished with the same good record. It's beyond comprehension. Just use a tie-breaker to determine the Division winner. It's shocking that this is how it's handled. Who says they have to handle it like this? Who's to say they can't use Kazmir or Fiers for that game? We don't have to exhaust any of our top 3 starters in that game.
That's the other potential fascinating component no one is really talking about: they're just 2.5 games back of the Yankees. If they and the Rangers go 0-4 and the Astros sweep Arizona, the result would be tiebreaker and (if they lose to Anaheim) WC in MMP, right?
100% agree. Well, I think that's because you and I seem aligned on the relative importance of winning the tiebreaker, right? I've called it mostly meaningless, which hasn't sat well with too many here. And the reasoning is exactly what you outlined above: it's forcing teams to exhaust additional resources.
Not really...it's dumb as ****, but the rules are the rules, and winning that game is advantageous. It's a ticket to the normal playoffs. And heck, while I really only care about rings, it would still be cool to win the division this year (an ancillary benefit - not really using this to support my stance). But the starting rotation is set up how it's set up - they aren't exhausting a WC or ALDS pitcher at that point. By Monday, the only 2 options for Thursday would be Keuchel or McHugh. And McCullers isn't an option for the Monday game if he's pitching Sunday (obviously). So, Fiers (or Kazmir) would be getting the ball anyway. It's not affecting anything, other than possibly taxing the bullpen. View it as a freeroll to Thursday.
You're the second person to post this... if a player gets a hurt, it's affecting *everything* - it's a needlessly risky game that (as you pointed out; correctly, IMO) punishes a team that's already made the playoffs.
So, if the Rangers win the first three against the Angels and the Twins lose their next two and the Astros win their next two, should the Astros forfeit the game Sunday to make sure no one gets hurt and catch an early flight to New York? After all, that will presumably ensure no one gets hurt by playing Sunday.
ok, well, injury is not something i'm particularly worried about (any more so than i am in any other game). what if you lose that game, then an indiana jones boulder comes rolling through the dugout in the WC game? should have won the division game. and if hinch is worried, he has the freedom to literally treat it like a freeroll and trot out any ragtag skeleton crew lineup he wants to, filled with players who can snap their legs to no future playoff detriment. what do you want them to do? forfeit the game? the dumb rules are the dumb rules. winning that game is still a ton better than losing it. may as well make the most of it and use to to our advantage to get to thursday/line up our ALDS rotation perfectly.
What kind of response is that? Forfeit?... There's this exciting new concept called resting players and, yes: if Sunday proves to be 100% meaningless, I would highly recommend the Astros - or any team in a similar situation - give it a try. Major's the poster that asserted, about a tiebreaker game, that "there is literally no harm done except for a possible stopover in Arlington for a day" - and I asked him what I'll ask you: if Correa gets hurt playing in that game, is it still literally harmless?
I'm going to the wild card game in NY, so I'd actually rather we finish as the 2nd wild card as apposed to the 1st. Same would also hold true if the Angels won 3 of 4, we'd just be playing against the Rangers instead of the Angels for the division. In you scenario, the Yankees would then finish in a tie with the Rangers, and possibly the Twins for the 2nd wild card. So they would also be in a play-in game.
I'm not taking that over the division though. If we get into a tiebreaker for the division, I absolutely want them to win that tiebreaker.
Great. I have Monday ALDS tickets and I hope we sweep them in 3 and I don't get to see the game. Different agendas I guess.
Jesus, really? Why are we talking about injuries in the same vein as Indiana Jones boulders and teams illegally forfeiting games? One could actually happen; the other two are products of Fantasyland. I prefer that they not have to deal with a tiebreaker... that does not - in any way, shape or form mean that I think they shouldn't PLAY the tiebreaker. I don't even understand the journey to that conclusion - and I'll fully accept blame if I've mis-communicated here, though I don't believe I have... If you give me two choices: 1) tiebreaker; 2) straight to wild card game... I think I'd lean #2. Not because I don't value/understand importance/advantage of reaching ALDS "automatically" (again, I advocated for that last week)... I would just watch that tiebreaker game in a constant state of fear, worrying about injuries, taxing our arms, exhausting our players, etc. - and for what? To possibly play the Wild Card game, anyway?
Or they could just win the tiebreaker... not sure why you're not even considering that (especially if they're playing the Angels at MMP). Its not like the WC game gets easier for any reason.
I've already made my views on the structure of this clear. It's insane. I'll get that out of the way one last time so I don't have to repeat it again. But, that being clarified, it's the reality we face. And it doesn't take a glass-half-full mentality to be able to turn the stupidity around and view it as an advantage for us. Which would you prefer: multiple chances to win one game and play Thursday? Or one chance to win and play Thursday? I guess you already answered that you'd choose the latter, but how on earth can that really be your preference?? Not to mention, in #1, a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario exists where Keuchel can then open the ALDS Thursday, and for your purposes, you wouldn't have to watch every pitch he throws on Tuesday in a constant state of fear that he will get injured and be lost for the rest of the playoffs.
If you give me two choices: 1) tiebreaker; 2) straight to wild card game... I think I'd lean #2. Not because I don't value/understand importance/advantage of reaching ALDS "automatically" (again, I advocated for that last week)... I would just watch that tiebreaker game in a constant state of fear, worrying about injuries, taxing our arms, exhausting our players, etc. - and for what? To possibly play the Wild Card game, anyway?[/QUOTE] This isn't logical at all. Assuming each game is a 50% proposition, which isn't completely accurate but I will go with for the sake of simpler math, having two shots to get into the NLDS gives you 75% equity, while having only one shot gives you 50% of getting in. To give up 25% equity out of fear of injury is asinine.
(Is this thing on?........) At what point have I not considered them winning the tiebreaker?... It's risk/reward: how many resources do I want to burn a) forcing a tiebreaker game; b) playing a tiebreaker game IF... the end result is a wild card game anyway? I even said I was torn by the two scenarios. And by expressing that doubt, 1) I was called a CONTRARIAN; and 2) I was told that there was "literally" no harm in playing a tiebreaker game because, apparently, the prospect of a player getting injured is about as likely as a 1981 Steven Spielberg movie breaking out in the middle of a baseball game. I prefer they win the division; hell, I argued that *against* you last week. But I hate the tiebreaker game and I would not manage/approach that as a "must-win."
Having to play a tiebreaker? I agree. I guess this comes down to semantics... Monday is regular season; Tuesday is playoffs. That's probably a thin line but that's where my brain is... So... if we get to the playoffs, in this year where playoffs seemed like a long shot (preseason), I'm satisfied and look forward to this being future building blocks for our nucleus. I'm not jumping up and down defending my position; I've said literally from the beginning that I'm torn. But then various posters pick this, others pick that and the message gets spread... I 100% understand the ways in which a tiebreaker is preferable. And if I knew they would win it, I'd obviously be in favor. What concerns me is the expense paid to force/play in a tiebreaker game that might ultimately lead to us playing a wild card game anyway. Only we're another day tired; our rotation has been potentially altered; we've added an ultimately meaningless trip to a long season for a lot of young players...
