why is it that if Houston and Philly would have tied, they would have had to play a one game playoff?(houston was 6-0 against the Phillies this season) but NY and Boston tied, and NY got the division by virtue of their winning record against Boston..... was this a fluke in the rules because of the Indians place in the AL wild card race?? i just dont understand why Houston wasnt guaranteed the wild card with their dominance over Philly this season...
I had the same question. Major explained the idea to me in the thread below, but I'm with you... it doesn't make a lot of sense. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=102270
I'm pretty sure that they wanted to make sure that there couldn't be a 3-way tie to the WC. Division ties are settled via head-to-head records and interdivision ties are settled by a playoff game. For example, it would not be fair to have the NYY and Sox play a game to settle the division and then the loser to play the Indians for the WC. The Yankees or Sox would have 2 chances to make the playoffs vs. the Indians' 1 chance.
I don't think that's the case. The Yankees only clinched the division Saturday when the Indians lost, ensuring that it would be impossible for the three teams to finish with the same record. As I understand it, the only scenario in which NYY and BOS would've played a one-game playoff to settle the division is if they were tied with Cleveland, and then the loser would've played the Indians for the WC.
This is exactly what would have happened had their been a 3-way tie between those teams. It would have been a 3-team playoff, with Cleveland playing the loser of the BOS-NYY game. It would have been fair, IMO, for Bos/NYY to have two chances to make the playoffs because they tied for two playoff spots - division and WC - as opposed to Cleveland only tying for the WC. What really sucks is if 3 teams tie for the WC. Two teams have to win twice to make the playoffs, while one team only has to win once.
Also, since Boston and NY ended with the same record... but they both make the playoffs... they will actually be declared Co-champions (just like the Cardinals and Astros in 2001). Its the dumbest thing... but that is what the MLB rules dictate.
Where can I see that crap in writing? Because it was my understanding that that was *not* the case, and the Co-ardinals *asked* for that back in 2001. Bush.
"Thank" is not the term I would employ. If our Astros ever flew a "Co-Champions" banner I would have to write someone a letter expressing my opinion that it is bush league and the Astros as an organization are above that.
Should that not read - one team has to win twice while another has to win once? Two teams cannot win twice in a 3-way tie.
betonsports disagrees with you, since they paid out on my Yankees win the AL East bet but not on my Red Sox win the AL East bet. A playoff is required when two teams are tied and one of them is not going to the playoffs. Since the Red Sox clinched the WC, there was no need for a playoff for the AL East. If the Indians had not choked down the stretch and had finished with a better record than the Yanks and Sox, then there would have been a 1 game playoff for the AL East. wrt the 3 way tie, no team would have to win twice. The winner of the division playoff game goes to the playoffs with 1 win. The loser of the division playoff game would play the wildcard playoff game. The winner of that game would also have 1 win (and either 0 or 1 loss) and would go to the playoffs.
I was referring to a 3-way tie for a wildcard spot. Say Hou, Philly, and San Fran tied for the WC. Two of those would play each other, and then the winner plays the 3rd. The two involved in the first game have to win twice. The 3rd team only has to win once.
