RealGM

With individual games being the first tie breaker. I'll use the AL East and Central as examples:

I am guessing that NY wins and BOS loses. So with that the Standings would look like this:

AL EAST:
1) Toronto, 2-1-1 (7-6)
2) Tampa Bay, 2-1-1, (7-6)
3) New York, 2-2-0 (7-6)
4) Baltimore, 1-3-0 (5-7)
5) Boston, 1-3-0 (5-8)


AL Central
1) Detroit, 2-1-1 (6-4)
2) Chicago, 2-2-0 (7-6)
3) Minnesota, 2-2-0 (6-6)
4) Cleveland, 2-2-0 (6-7)******************2 postponed games
5) Kansas City 2-2-0 (4-7)********** 1 postponed game


As the season goes on there can be a team with a worse series record, but a better overall record.

But this is all based on SERIES outcomes.

ThoughtsÉ

It's interesting,

If a team is already up 2-0 in a 3 game series, they get a chance to rest their starters and play their subs since they already came out with the W. Considering the long season and playing almost every day, it might not be a bad idea, to limit injuries later on in the season.

However as a fan I would be disappointed if I bought tickets to the 3rd game and then realizing that my team is down 0-2. I wouldn't enjoy watching the opposing teams playing their whole bench instead of all their star players for rest (i.e. Dodgers playing Van Slyke and J. Turner to rest Puig and Hanley Ramirez).

I agree. It would be too many meaningless games, along with too many games where teams will throw the kitchen sink with the series tied.

Speaking of interesting season formats, I thought the championship belt idea I saw on reddit was really fun.

I think everything is fine the way it is. Tiebreakers head-to-head first then division/league record.

OT:

I would like to see 2 things change when it comes to Pitchers

1)
For example,

Team A
PITCHER A: goes 7 innings, giving up 2 Run, but his team is scoreless.
PITCHER B: goes 2 inning, giving up 4 Runs

Team A scores 5 Runs, the rest of the way and end up losing.

In this situation, I would like to the Pitcher B credited with the LOSS, because the team was able to cover him for the runs that he gave up.

-----------------------------------------------

2) Make pitchers responsible for PARTIAL runs, when they are removed from the game:

For example,

Pitcher A: gives up a double and Single, ----------RUNNERS at 1st and 3rd
PItcher B: gives up a Walk,---------------------------Bases loaded
Pitcher C: gives up a Grand Slam

Runs given up are calculated on where the runner was when the Pitcher leaves

Pitcher A will be charged with 1 Run,
0.75 Runs for the runner that was at 3rd,
0.25 for the Runner that was at 1st

Pitcher B will be charged with 0.50 Runs,
0.25 run for the runner moving up to 2nd,
0.25 for the batter that reached 1st

Pitcher C will be charged with 2.50 Runs
0.25 Runs for the runner at 3rd scoring
0.50 Runs for the runner at 2nd scoring
0.75 Runs for the runner at 1st scoring
1 Run for the batter scoring

This is compared to:
Pitcher A being charged with 2 Runs
Pitcher B being charged with 1 Run
Pitcher C being charged with 1 Run


Why is a pitcher that leaves a game responsible for a FULL run, when they aren't the ones that let them score.

Why?

HangTime wrote:
ThoughtsÉ

It's terrible.

awful idea, even if it did skew our way a series or two ago

It would be interesting but I don't think it would be fair to make a 2-1 series win have the same value as a 3-0 or 4-0 series win.

I bet the standings would look essentially the same after 162 games/53 series.

BAD idea. Instead of waiting for September to see teams throw games, we'd see it by the end of opening weekend. Terrible idea.