Reply With Quote
once you went "just make it 250 games, every team makes the playoffs, Jan 1st -Dec 31st, no big deal" you lost it, imo.
Either that or youre just an idiot, bro.
Well, that's a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. Saying that MLB can go two more weeks is different than arguing for a 12 month season, obviously.
That's like taking your argument that 162 games is good enough to determine 2/4 playoff spots, and twisting it by saying why should there even be a World Series, when we could just crown whoever got the most wins total as MLB champion.
once you went "just make it 250 games, every team makes the playoffs, Jan 1st -Dec 31st, no big deal" you lost it, imo.
Either that or youre just an idiot, bro.
It's hyperbole. If you got lost over it, I can't do anything for you, son.
The point is when you keep adding teams to the playoffs, keep adding weeks to the season, where does it end? If you go two teams at a time, two weeks at a time, each of those times, it might not be "that big of a deal." At some point, the ac ulation of added playoff teams, added weeks to the season becomes a "big deal." So when does it stop? You cut it off at some point.
Sorry for confusing you. It's not as complicated a notion as you interpreted it as. It was hyperbole. But don't be sad bro. I don't think you're not smart enough to get it now that I've explained.
But couldn't someone take it the other way, and wonder why playoffs are even needed? If a regular season is so dispositive for you, then playoffs also seem unnecessary.
Because until recent years, the National League didn't play the American League so you had two different leagues with unfamiliarity playing for a championship. But even now with interleague play, not every American League team plays every National League team. So there's a chance the best team in each league didn't meet in the regular season. A World Series makes sense because of that.
But even if they did play each other in the regular season, I understand the celebratory nature of a championship series, the pomp and cir stance that goes along with it. There's the climax of the final out of a playoff series as opposed to the final out of the last regular season game where the whole nation is watching as opposed to only some fans watching. How the World Series is the only focus as opposed to the final game of the regular season is played on the same day by all 30 MLB teams. There's obviously a difference. Then there's the TV ratings, the endorsement dollars, the playoff revenue. I understand why there are playoffs in all professional sports. For MLB baseball specifically, it doesn't need to be expanded though imo. It wasn't even meant to be as long as it is now. As I mentioned earlier, if they just had the best team in each league play a World Series, I'd be fine with that.
I didn't get lost. I stated "you lost it".
Apparently you still haven't found it.
I got your horrible hyperbole.The point is when you keep adding teams to the playoffs, keep adding weeks to the season, where does it end? If you go two teams at a time, two weeks at a time, each of those times, it might not be "that big of a deal." At some point, the ac ulation of added playoff teams, added weeks to the season becomes a "big deal." So when does it stop? You cut it off at some point.
As for your question, "where does it end?", I made it clear. Add a few more weeks and it ends there, imo. No big deal.
Not sure why you think adding two more weeks will end up in a never ending season.
No confusion about what you stated. It was a terrible hyperbole and you are still mad that I want to add a few weeks and a few more playoff teams.Sorry for confusing you. It's not as complicated a notion as you interpreted it as. It was hyperbole. But don't be sad bro. I don't think you're not smart enough to get it now that I've explained.
Why are you so upset?
When they started adding more playoff series, it was likely a similar argument. Hey, we're just adding one more week with the added playoff series. Then another. Now there are three playoff series and up to 3-4 weeks more than it used to be. You add one more now, then someone else in the future says the same thing: "one more week isn't a big deal." Then again in the future, "oh one more week isn't a big deal." That's how incremental additions ac ulate into a "big deal." The season is long enough. The NFL already plays half of its regular season when the World Series ends now. The MLB should be done by early to mid October, not at the beginning of November. It's my opinion. You disagree with it, fine. It's merely an opinion. You don't have to get bent over it.
If they keep adding to the playoffs, then cut the regular season down to 135-140 games.
As for this "you're upset" shtick. If you think I'm upset and am not making any sense, why are you even responding? Let's try this out. U mad bro?
So you actually believe that it's possible that there could be 250 regular season games and that all the teams could potentially be in the playoffs?
If you weren't just getting upset because I disagreed with you, and you really believe this, then you are just plain stupid.
Sorry for my confusion about your intelligence level.
Nah, they don't need to cut any regular season games, imo.If they keep adding to the playoffs, then cut the regular season down to 135-140 games.
Watching a poster get mad over my opinion is awesomeness.As for this "you're upset" shtick. If you think I'm upset and am not making any sense, why are you even responding?
If you aren't upset, why do you keep responding in this upset manner?
No, bro.Let's try this out. U mad bro?
How did that work out for you?
Nope, I don't believe there will ever be a 250 game MLB regular season or all the teams getting into the playoffs. Please refer to the definition of the aforementioned "hyperbole." You'll understand better. If you don't get the point by now, I can't help you bro.
I suppose thinking a poster is getting mad is awesomeness to you, probably in a similar fashion as you playing with your imaginary friends. Sounds like loads of fun actually.
I don't mind responding to posts. Using an exaggeration to make a point doesn't equate to being upset. Generating that notion that someone is upset based on them making a hyperbole isn't exactly correlative. That is on you. Shrugs. That's cool if that's what you resort to when you argue. I guess you have a pretty good imagination. And if you get a few s and giggles thinking that way, more power to you.
Last edited by JamStone; 01-04-2011 at 02:54 PM.
Just gonna play Devil's Advocate here.
If 162 games are good enough to determine who the best teams are to make the playoffs, then why aren't they good enough to determine the best team, period?
Your argument that the NL and the AL didn't usually play each other is somewhat weak. Do all AL teams play the same opponents/schedule? If not, then AL teams play different opponents just as NL teams do. And if all teams play different opponents, then why not just crown whoever wins the most out of the 162?
If you're willing to give the AL championship to a team that might have played a weak schedule without them having to defend it against another team, why not just give the MLB championship in the same way?
(I agree with you on the "pomp/TV ratings" argument, but feel that's a different argument.)
Fair point. Didn't say any certain way is perfect without flaws. But we are talking different leagues. Sure in each league, some teams have tougher schedules than others. But they are still two distinct leagues. That's certainly a factor. Different leagues, with at least one major rule difference (DH/pitcher hitting).
You add the other part of the argument that you agreed with, having a World Series playoff series does make enough sense. Anything more than that, I think it's more or less just about generating more revenue for the sport.
Fair enough with the "two different leagues" argument, which is, AFAIK, unique to professional sports.
I sometimes wonder what if other sports did that... can you imagine if the AFC, for instance, had five downs to work from instead of four? Or if the NFC field was 120 yards long instead of 100? "Homefield advantage" means a lot more to the MLB than any other sport.
Great, so we agree it was a stupid hyperbole since there is obviously a stopping point.
I guess you won't be crying out "when will it ever end" any more.
You admitting it to be an improbable hyperbole means you weren't really debating the issue any more, which most likely means you were just mad that you had nothing legit to dismiss my opinion with.I suppose thinking a poster is getting mad is awesomeness to you, probably in a similar fashion as you playing with your imaginary friends. Sounds like loads of fun actually.
I don't mind responding to posts. Using an exaggeration to make a point doesn't equate to being upset. Generating that notion that someone is upset based on them making a hyperbole isn't exactly correlative. That is on you. Shrugs. That's cool if that's what you resort to when you argue. I guess you have a pretty good imagination. And if you get a few s and giggles thinking that way, more power to you.
It was pretty entertaining.
...and the all-star game determining who gets it might be the worst playoff idea in any sport.
I must insist you look up the definition of the word "hyperbole" since obviously you haven't yet and still don't know the meaning of the word. Other than that, I'm glad you could entertain yourself. Good on ya, old lad.
I know the definition of the word and I saw the extreme hyperbole in your post.
Even though I clearly stated "two extra weeks is good for me" you used your hyperbole to cry "when will it end? 250 games? all teams in the playoffs?" etc.
There was no point to the hyperbole since we both agree that it's improbable. Since that's the case, it smells like butthurt imo.
You have been providing the entertainment, tbh.Other than that, I'm glad you could entertain yourself. Good on ya, old lad.
Lol cool. It's good to be easily entertained.
Hyperboles are often improbable, sometimes impossible. Please, please look up the definition.
No need, I know what hyperboles are. And again, I clearly recognized your lame hyperbole.
Hyperboles are very rarely used when making an argument and in this case, it did nothing but show what appeared to be butthurt on your part.
You should probably research how to effectively use hyperbole.
But the problem in this case was that the hyperbole wasn't an effective argument. Saying "when will it stop?" isn't a very effective to counter to Blake's "two more weeks is ok". Blake saying that two more weeks is acceptable is obviously a much different argument than saying they should play 250 games.
As I mentioned very early on, over the last 30 years, it's not just one more week or two more weeks. Back in 1980, the World Series was over by early October. Now it's over in early November. One more week now in addition to the added weeks it's already had over time ac ulates into a "big deal." You add two more weeks now. Then 5 years from now, someone else says, "hey let's add two more teams. What's one more week?" That's what I have been getting at. 1-2 weeks doesn't seem big. But when you already consider 3 weeks have been added over 30 years, it's really adding 5 more weeks than what it should be. That's why I said, when will it end? 2 weeks now. Then sometime in the future, another 2 weeks since "2 weeks isn't a big deal." When will it end? Blake saying "two more weeks is ok" leads me to the hyperbole because it isn't simply 2 more weeks. It's 2 more weeks plus the 3 weeks that has been added over time. The MLB already over extends it's season as is.
Hey, if you don't get that, fine. My point remains the same. If anything, they should cut the division back down to two, the two division winners in each league play a league championship series, then the World Series. Have the World Series over by mid October at the latest. And as pointed out earlier, I'd be perfectly fine if they just took the best team in each league after the regular season and play the World Series with those two teams.
But that's the problem with your argument. The whole "when will it end?" isn't a valid argument when it comes to whether or not the two weeks Blake proposed is valid or not.
It's flawed logic. It's like saying we can't raise taxes on the rich by 5% now, because when will it end? 10 years from now, rates might be 50% higher than they are today!
Now, if you're arguing that those extra 2 weeks are excessive, that's different. You can use the evidence you've already cited (ie. that it's already been expanded, that weather plays a factor, etc etc). But proposing a hypothetical situation that no one thinks will happen does nothing for your argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
