Talk:One-game playoff

well you have my blood blowing I had to say I'll blow the valve a little bit thank you I guess I needed that LOL

Proposal

This article could be combined with any new info from Pennant playoff and used to create a better-titled article called "Tie-breaking playoff", with the two older pages redirecting to the new one. Any comments? Wahkeenah 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The redirect pages help us doing that. I think the title "tie-breaking playoff" is much more clear than "pennant playoff" or "one-game playoff", specially if we consider the 3-game tie-breaking series in the history of the MLB. Aladdin Lee 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nit-pick: The MLB section should really refer to a "best of three" playoff, as "three game playoff" could be misinterpreted. WHPratt (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "Make-up games": The screwy 1981 strike-interrupted split season featured a make-up game with playoff implications contested the day after the scheduled end of the season. In point of fact, they were prepared to make up a double header, but the first game decided the issue.WHPratt (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Games counting in standings

I don't think this is the case anymore, especially as it applies to breaking other ties. But I think it used to be. I'm pretty sure that, originally, if teams A and B were tied for the division lead, and were also tied with team C, another 2nd place team in another division, that A and B would play their playoff for the division title, but then, since the loss for the losing team would be added to the record, that team would be 1/2 game behind team C, so team C would automatically get the Wild Card. Clearly, that's not the case anymore, but therefore it is false, or at least very misleading, to say that the games count in the standings. It would be great for someone to clarify this, with references, in the article. Simon12 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely the case in baseball. If, say, the Mets, Phillies, and Padres had all finished tied, the Padres would have automatically gotten the wild card and the Mets and Phillies would have played one game for the NL East. It's to prevent there being multiple games, unless it's absolutely necessary (such as if the Mets, Phillies, Padres, and Rockies had all finished tied). Nosleep1234 04:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely not the case. If all three teams had finished tied, the loser of the Mets-Phillies game would have played the Padres in a playoff game.[1]. It used to be the way you described it, but it is no longer. That's why the article needs to be clarified. Simon12 10:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Should each win and San Diego, which has a one-game lead in the NL Wild Card race, lose, the loser of Monday's playoff game enters into a Wild Card tiebreaker elimination that would include San Diego and possibly Colorado."

That seems to be the relevant phrase in what you linked. Really doesn't say anything definitely about a three-team tie. Nosleep1234 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That scenario would have (had Colorado lost) been a three-team tie at 89-73.

I don't know what the exact rules are now, but they must have changed at some time. The way, the truth, and the light 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this article from 2005[2], the current rules were in place then also. (Yankees/Red Sox loser would have faced the Indians for the wild card. But the Indians lost their last game, so no WC playoff, and then no division playoff, was needed) Simon12 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at mlb.com, the playoff game did count in the standings, but my point about playoff matchups still holds. If the Phillies, Mets and Padres had tied, the loser of the Phillies/Mets would have played the Padres. Here a specific source on the 3-team playoff[3]:

The Mets cannot win the wild card outright but could tie the Padres if the Mets and Phillies win and the Padres lose. The Mets and Phils would play Monday and the loser would play the Padres on Tuesday.

The key point is that the Phillies or Mets would not have been thrown out of the Wild card playoff by losing their division playoff game. If you have a source to the contrary, please provide it. Simon12 01:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the text from the baseball rulebook[4]. It covers all sorts or scenarios, but Scenario 5 is the one we're interested in, with the key text bolded:

If three Clubs in a League are tied with identical winning percentages at the end of the championship season and two of those tied Clubs are from the same Division and are also tied for first place in that Division and the third tied Club has the highest winning percentage among the second-place Clubs in the remaining two Divisions, the Division Champion shall first be determined by a one-game playoff on Monday, September 29. Any playoff games played to determine a Division champion shall not count in determining which Clubs are deemed tied for a Wild Card designation. Clubs that were originally tied with a Club or Clubs for a Wild Card designation shall still be considered tied.

This should settle the current rules, although I'd still like to know when the rules changed.Simon12 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha. So let's suppose the Mets and Phils were tied at 89-73 after Sunday, the Padres also 89-73, and the Rockies 88-74 so they're out. The Mets and Phils play Monday. The winner is 90-73 and advances to the post-season. The loser is 89-74, whereas the Padres are still 89-73, of course. They play each other as if they both still had the same record, although that part doesn't really matter. If the Padres win, they are 90-73 and the other team is 89-75, and the Padres advance. If the other team wins, they are 90-74 whereas the Padres are 89-74, so the Padres are out and the other team advances. But what if the Rockies are also in the mix? Based on the above scenario, presumably the Rockies' win over the Padres last night, in the "other" Monday playoff game in this scenario, pits them against the loser of the Mets-Phils playoff, on Tuesday. That means the Rockies are 90-73 after their win and the other team is 89-74 after their loss. If the Rockies win, they are 91-73 and they advance. If the other team wins, both are now 90-74, but because the other team just beat them, it's as if the game counts twice, and they advance... hence the need for "not counting" the previous playoff game, i.e. it's as if they were tied when the played. It's starting to make sense, if I've got it right. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And in reading that press release, rather than restating it in the article, it should simply be linked-to, with a comment that in case of the season ending in one or more ties, there are special rules to cover the various possibilities, and let it go at that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're making it more complicated than it is. Once the season ends and it's determined which teams are tied, ignore the records going forward. Teams advance because they're winning playoff games, not because their records are now better.Simon12 02:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true. And if I read it right, it wouldn't necessarily be teams from the same division facing each other. The seeding for these playoffs is based on their records against others, or coin toss if necessary. I think the article reads fairly well at this point. A more-than-two-team playoff doesn't need a lot of depth of re-explanation, because (1) it's in the MLB writeup and (2) it hasn't actually happened yet, it's all theoretical. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And you're right, the overall wins and losses are listed in the final standings, but they don't count in these single-game "tournaments", each one starts fresh. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it will be more and more difficult to defend the official stance that such games are really an extension of the season rather than part of the playoffs. Maybe they should just give that up.WHPratt (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

MLB's attitude has always been to draw a bright line between regular season and post-season. Only 8 teams qualify for the post-season. That means these one-game playoffs are part of the regular season; basically an extra game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Back when the N.L. used a best-of-three playoff to break a pennant tie, this possibility existed. Suppose that the third place team were only a game back, and suppose that the playoff resulted in a two-game sweep. E.g. (W L Pct. GB):

Season proper: Team A 96-58 .623 --, Team B 96-58 .623 --, Team C 95-59 .617 1.

After playoff: Team A 98-58.628 --, Team C 95-59 .617 1, Team B 96-60 .615 1.

Someone asked in a letter published in The Sporting News whether the playoff loss could drop Team B into third place. (This would affect the distribution of the World Series loot as well as (in later years) draft order.) No, they replied. So, presumably, Team B is still in second, but the standings require The Asterisk to explain that .615 really is better than .617. just as a 60 can be better than a 61.

So, with regard to tiebreaker playoffs, individual stats count in the regular season. So do team stats, except for Games Behind, which only count where they make no difference.WHPratt (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that, as a tie-break game is still considered part of the "regular season," the contending teams are permitted to use their 40-man "September" rosters in the game, though the winner has to trim back to 25 for the first playoff game. Is this still true? The article should clarify this point. Also, "three game playoff" should properly read "best-of-three playoff," as it may be decided in two games. WHPratt (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Playoff rules changes in 2001

It looks like the change was implemented for the 2001 season[5], but the newspaper story is not definitive, so its not ready for the main article yet. Simon12 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the theoretical scenarios never actually happened, how important is the issue of whatever the old more-than-two-teams rules were? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone may be re-creating these seasons in simulation, via theoretical analysis or computer or Strat-o-Matic or something similar. They may want to resolve such a scenario that develops by the prevailing rules, and there aren't many other places to go for this kind of research.WHPratt (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

NFL Tie-Break Games

Curious. It would appear that player statistics for these games are pretty much lost to the ages, as they're neither regular season games nor postseason playoff games. And here we're talking of an extra 1/12 or 1/13 "season" in many cases (as opposed to othere sports where a single extra game represents far less).WHPratt (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I researched the overtime/no overtime status of early NFL tiebreakers and championship games via newspaper archives, and added that info to the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_NFL_Championships#List_of_various_league.2Fworld_championship_game_systems Reference links can be found there. I also rewrote a paragraph in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Overtime_(sports)#Professional to comply. WHPratt (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous MLB pennant playoffs

There is this paragraph: "Prior to the wild card playoff system, all five pennant playoffs in the National League had involved the Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers (which won the coin toss for home field all five times, yet lost all except the 1959 one), and both American League playoffs had involved the Boston Red Sox (who hosted both and lost both). None of the one-game playoffs since 1994 have involved those teams."

Please be more specific at the outset. I know of these tiebreaker playoffs before 1969: NL in 1946, 1951, 1959, 1962 (all involving the Dodgers), and the 1948 1-game playoff where Cleveland defeated Boston (nixing an all-Boston World Series). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe drop it as being too trivial at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

MLB post-season rules have changed for 2012

See Major League Baseball tie-breaking procedures, but I do not have time to do this myself. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)