Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Flacusian, post: 1386408, member: 264"] An interesting proposition which clearly has merit. Baseball however is characterized by many seemingly odd and what would appear to be random characteristics that have become engrained in the tradition of the sport itself. Baseball stadiums are of different sizes, shape, and even different surfaces. The NL and the AL have significant rule differences. The 162 game schedule should provide ample opportunity for teams to establish their hierarchy of which teams are deserving of post season play. The idea of awarding a point for simply winning a series is to establish a nebulous criteria outside of actual wins and losses on the field. A team which wins a series has already been awarded the advantage of showing the win in the standings. To award additional "points" or wins simple on the basis of having won a series is akin to "double dipping". It also begs the question, " Do you award several points for a team which sweeps a 5 game series as opposed to winning the series 3-2 ?" Perhaps the biggest hurdle of such an idea is the fact that most statistical records for modern day play are based on the 162 game season. The individual records and achievements would no longer have the same basis. Baseball already suffers from some of that since historically there were fewer games in the season. Couple that with the negative impact that the steroid era having skewed the marks for home runs and batting statistics and it would be creating an even more convoluted record book. Like it or not I think baseball is going to be structured with the same type of schedule well into the future. Baseball with all it's idiosyncrasies is very slow to change and some of the asymmetrical aspects are what make it what it is. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?