Friday, July 22, 2005

Lite Notes

1. Can't think of much to say lately. Not sure why.

2. I did absolutely nothing out of the ordinary for this little winning streak, so I have nothing to keep doing to do my part. No atypical shirts, foods eaten, new Twins keychain, hat wearing, etc. Maybe doing nothing out of the ordinary is what I have to do.

3. I'm thinking Gardy would have been ejected tonight for the four-base-foul-ball, had he not been ejected earlier.

4. I'm curious to see who gets sent down for Baker or if anyone gets traded. I have no insight, I just want to see what happens. I didn't even know who Shannon Stewart was when we traded beloved Kielty for him.

5. I searched high and low on the site for official rules involving tiebreakers and found none.


Blogger frightwig said...

Here is an article from 2003 which claims to draw its tiebreaker guidelines from "Major League Rule 33 and Major League Rule 34":

Apparently the rule about two teams tying for a division title as well as tying a team from another division for the wild card spot has been changed since 2000. According to that article, the two teams tied for a division title would have a playoff to decide the division. Then, the loser would play a game against the interdivision rival for the wild card berth.

If there is a three-way tie for the wild card only, it seems the scenario becomes terribly complicated. Read "Scenario #4" in the article and see if you can figure it out.

2:48 AM  
Blogger Nick N. said...

Gardenhire had not been ejected earlier in the game last night, he was suspended for the game because of his harsh words for Hunter Wentelstad from a few days before.

I don't know if you were aware of that and just worded the sentence wrong, but I thought I'd mention it.

3:04 PM  
Blogger amr said...

Nick: I meant to imply that he had two opportunities to be ejected in a game he was pre-ejected for.

11:19 PM  
Blogger amr said...

Thank you so much for that link. That is exactly how it should be. If I were to draw it up, that is how I would draw it up. Maybe I would try to streamline the wording. But, the main points are:

1) No team should be denied the playoffs by a tiebreaker, and that no team should be penalized because it was also tied for first place in its division.

1a) No need to play an extra tiebreaker game when both teams will make the playoffs anyways.

2) One-game tiebreaking playoffs are not part of the chamionship season and as such should not be counted. A team that is tied for WC and first place should not be penalized, nor should a team be rewarded for finishing second (instead of tied for first).

11:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home