Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tie breakers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bluesteve32
    replied
    Originally posted by VTSoxFan
    I love extra innings. I like seeing managers dig into their bag of tricks to either manufacture a run or prevent the other team from doing so. Extra innings force managers to really manage their teams. They shift thier infields around or bring in an outfielder to play a 5th infield position, and dig deep into the bullpens, and every pitch and every hit means all that much more.

    I remember a game, Tigers v. Sox at Fenway, in June '01 -- 18 innings. Manny was intentionally walked something like 5 times in that game; there were a number of great plays that saved runs on both sides; the bullpens were emptied and Wakefield pitched the 18th, being awarded with a win when Shea Hillenbrand, at about 1:45am, hit one over the wall in left-center.

    Of course, extra innings very nearly amounted to sudden death for me when Wake pitched the 12th-14th in Game 5. Holy yikes.

    And the 13-inning July 1st '04 game v. the Yankees -- Though I don't like the final score, that was one of the most amazing games I've ever seen. Neither team should have lost that one.
    Your post is right on the money!

    Leave a comment:


  • VTSoxFan
    replied
    I love extra innings. I like seeing managers dig into their bag of tricks to either manufacture a run or prevent the other team from doing so. Extra innings force managers to really manage their teams. They shift thier infields around or bring in an outfielder to play a 5th infield position, and dig deep into the bullpens, and every pitch and every hit means all that much more.

    I remember a game, Tigers v. Sox at Fenway, in June '01 -- 18 innings. Manny was intentionally walked something like 5 times in that game; there were a number of great plays that saved runs on both sides; the bullpens were emptied and Wakefield pitched the 18th, being awarded with a win when Shea Hillenbrand, at about 1:45am, hit one over the wall in left-center.

    Of course, extra innings very nearly amounted to sudden death for me when Wake pitched the 12th-14th in Game 5. Holy yikes.

    And the 13-inning July 1st '04 game v. the Yankees -- Though I don't like the final score, that was one of the most amazing games I've ever seen. Neither team should have lost that one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluesteve32
    replied
    Originally posted by 1995hoo
    That was 1987 and was a four-overtime game the night before Easter Sunday. What made it even more exciting was that it was Game 7 of their Patrick Division semifinal series, meaning that whichever team scored would advance, while the other team would go home. That was AGONIZING to me as a Caps fan when Pat LaFontaine scored to end it.

    Only four NHL games have gone longer than four overtimes:

    Detroit 1, Montreal Maroons 0 (6 overtimes; 3-24-36; game ended after 116:30 of OT)

    Toronto 1, Boston 0 (6 overtimes; 4-3-33; game ended after 104:46 of OT)

    Philadelphia 2, Pittsburgh 0 (5 overtimes; 5-4-00; game ended after 92:01 of OT)

    Anaheim 4, Dallas 3 (5 overtimes; 4-24-03; game ended after 80:48 of OT)
    What I remember most about that Caps-Isles game is that we had the whole family over for dinner, the game was in its second over time when dinner was served, we went in and ate, had dessert, chit-chatted the normal amount and then I went back to see who had won that game....it was still going on.

    Didn't Mike Emrick and Bill Clement have their shirts off one Clement had his tie around his neck after the end of one overtime? The next time, their shirts and ties were back on. My mom even thought that was funny.

    Back to baseball, I remember in 1971 the A's and Angels had a 19 inning 1-0 game that started between that rookie sensation Vida Blue and the Angels' Rudy May. Tony Conigliaro struck out and was tossed in like the 13th after taking his batting helmet and hitting it with his bat. He retired about a week later and tired a comeback with the Red Sox a couple of years later.

    Angel Manguel got a base hit in the bottom of the 19th to drive in the game's only run.

    On another note, in 2002 I took the kids to see the Mets and Angels at the Big A and we were in the right field seats. The Mets gave up a big lead in the ninth, the Angels tied. We kept on moving closer to home plate in the extra frames. We had just got a seat in in the field level, looking down the third base foul line extended when Tim Salmon came up in and took the first pitch in the bottom of the thirteenth inning along the foul pole for the walk off win.

    The kids still talk about that game quite fondly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shoeless
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black
    the idea that baseball is played on a field that stretches into infinity, and that limitless time is involved.
    I've never been quite comfortable with that first idea: Think about it--two lines at ninety degrees will mark out a quarter of the Earth's surface before meeting on the other side. So the field is finite.

    As to the issue at hand, nothing beats extra innings. The more the better!

    Leave a comment:


  • 1995hoo
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluesteve32
    As for hockey, I like the shootout for these regular season games. There were too many ties before. In the Stanley Cup Playoffs, they play until they drop. Anyone remember that game some years ago between the Capitals and the Islanders? They played several overtimes, four or five (maybe more) and it was quite exciting.
    That was 1987 and was a four-overtime game the night before Easter Sunday. What made it even more exciting was that it was Game 7 of their Patrick Division semifinal series, meaning that whichever team scored would advance, while the other team would go home. That was AGONIZING to me as a Caps fan when Pat LaFontaine scored to end it.

    Only four NHL games have gone longer than four overtimes:

    Detroit 1, Montreal Maroons 0 (6 overtimes; 3-24-36; game ended after 116:30 of OT)

    Toronto 1, Boston 0 (6 overtimes; 4-3-33; game ended after 104:46 of OT)

    Philadelphia 2, Pittsburgh 0 (5 overtimes; 5-4-00; game ended after 92:01 of OT)

    Anaheim 4, Dallas 3 (5 overtimes; 4-24-03; game ended after 80:48 of OT)

    Leave a comment:


  • 1995hoo
    replied
    Originally posted by Appling
    Most team sports have invented ways of quickly resolving a tied score at the end of regulation play.

    Football once accepted ties as a legitimate way to end a game, but no more. "Sudden death" overtime (first team to score wins) was seen as favoring the team that first gets the ball in overtime, so now we have a very different way to resolve the game: each team gets the ball in the other team's territory, and has one series of offensive plays to score by any means. The other team then gets a chance to match or improve. Almost certain to score at least a field goal. Very different from the game in regulation time.
    That's only in the NCAA. In the NFL, conventional sudden death is used. In the regular season the game ends in a tie if nobody scores in overtime; there have been three ties in the past 10 years (1997, Giants and Eagles tied 10–10, then the next week the Redskins and Giants tied 7–7; then a few years ago the Falcons and Steelers tied 34–34). In the playoffs, they keep playing until someone scores; a couple of years ago the Panthers beat the Rams in double-OT to advance to the NFC Championship. The longest-ever pro football game was a USFL playoff game in Los Angeles between the Michigan Panthers and the LA Express that went into a third overtime period.

    Some people think the college system of overtime is fairer than the sudden death system used in the NFL because it gives each team a chance to score, whereas in the NFL a team can win the coin toss, march down the field, and kick a field goal. The rejoinder is that defense is part of the game as well and that your defense should be able to stop the other team.


    Hockey has invented an overtime where one skater is matched against the goalie --no defence men to help. Teams take turns. First to score when the other team fails is the winner. Again very different from the regular game, when placement of defensive skaters is very important.
    That's not entirely accurate. In the regular season they first play five minutes of four-on-four sudden-death OT, and only then do they go to the shootout. In the playoffs, overtime is played just like regular periods (except with no TV timeouts), and they play until someone scores; no shootouts in the playoffs. The longest game ever went 16 minutes into the SIXTH overtime, i.e., three minutes short of being THREE FULL GAMES. It's part of what makes the Stanley Cup Playoffs so exciting if you're a hockey fan....and so agonizing when your team loses in the fourth overtime!

    I don't really see why ties are a problem in hockey's regular season, or in any sport that uses a points-based standings system (i.e., two for a win, one for a tie, nothing for a loss). Obviously it is impractical in hockey to play unlimited overtime during the regular season given the nature of the sport, which is far more physically demanding than baseball and doesn't give the same sort of rest every half-inning. I'll grant that the shootout is exciting when you're attending a game, and the penalty shot is a legitimate part of the game, but I think it's an artificial way to resolve the outcome. But anyway, the point system causes the standings to sort themselves out at the end of the year. If anything, hockey's current system bastardizes the standings because it makes an overtime game worth MORE in the standings than a game that ends in regulation, because the current system gives you two for a win, one for a loss in OT or a shootout, and zero for a loss in regulation. A game that doesn't end in regulation is worth three points, whereas a game that does is worth two. What they should do is make it so that you get three for a win in regulation, two for a win in OT or shootout, one for a loss in OT or shootout, and none for a loss in regulation. That way you penalize the team that can't get its job done in the regulation 60 minutes, but you still reward the team that manages to keep the game tied in regulation.

    But baseball seems to keep on playing inning after inning. If you thought a nine inning game would be over in 3 hours, you may find an extra-inning game go on for another 8 or ten or more innings before one team emerges as the victor, several hours later. Extra innings are especially likely in a low-scoring game.

    Extra innings can ruin your planning for that day. Do you stay to the end or leave before it's over?

    Should baseball modify its rules to increase scoring in extra innings --or find some other way to bring the game to a swift conclusion? Or should baseball stay loyal to its rules and just keep on playing " 'til it's over"?
    I don't think it's a problem in baseball in the same way that it is in other sports because it's a very different game. Basketball has unlimited overtime, but I think it's been 50 years since a game went beyond four overtimes. Every player in a baseball game has a lot more of what I'd call "dead time" than a player in a hockey or basketball game. Football is a little different in that there is a fair amount of standing around, but when play resumes the players are smashing into each other in a way that doesn't happen in baseball.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluesteve32
    replied
    Originally posted by kckid2599
    Shoot-outs are amazing for hockey and are probabily one of the things that snatched the NHL from the graveyard.However, extra innings are fine as they are. Ive been to sevral extra inning games, one that went 16 innings, and it was extremly exciting.Every at bat could change the game.Its fine the way it is, except when the games run pass my bedtime lol
    Oh the shootout is great for regular season games and I have been a proponant of that for decades (yes an LA native a longtime hockey fan). However, the in the playoffs, play until you drop suits me just fine.

    Baseball extra innings are fine as well, besides, how many games a season really go beyone 11 innings? A minute few. leave well enough alone.

    Here is Rogatien (Rogie) Vachon in the all gold Kings uni of the early 1970s when Jack Kent Cooke own the club:
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Williamsburg2599
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluesteve32
    As for hockey, I like the shootout for these regular season games. There were too many ties before. In the Stanley Cup Playoffs, they play until they drop. Anyone remember that game some years ago between the Capitals and the Islanders? They played several overtimes, four or five (maybe more) and it was quite exciting.

    In the mid-1980s USC and UCLA played a triple overtime thriller, before the shot clock. I was watching that in a group and no one left for any mistake would have meant the game and every pass was designed to create an opening, but both teams defense was up to the task. One of the few times I was actually excited about a basketball game and when I talked about it to someone a few years later, he said, "You sound like a baseball fan discribing that game."

    "Of course," I replied, "and you know that I am."

    Shoot-outs are amazing for hockey and are probabily one of the things that snatched the NHL from the graveyard.However, extra innings are fine as they are. Ive been to sevral extra inning games, one that went 16 innings, and it was extremly exciting.Every at bat could change the game.Its fine the way it is, except when the games run pass my bedtime lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluesteve32
    replied
    Originally posted by KCGHOST
    Extra innings is the only way to go. It gives each team a fair chance to win the game. The pro football "sudden death" system is terribly flawed. The basketball overtime is very similar to as extra innings and offers each team a fair chance to win the game. The hockey system is rather contrived, but is probably done to protect the health of the players.
    As for hockey, I like the shootout for these regular season games. There were too many ties before. In the Stanley Cup Playoffs, they play until they drop. Anyone remember that game some years ago between the Capitals and the Islanders? They played several overtimes, four or five (maybe more) and it was quite exciting.

    In the mid-1980s USC and UCLA played a triple overtime thriller, before the shot clock. I was watching that in a group and no one left for any mistake would have meant the game and every pass was designed to create an opening, but both teams defense was up to the task. One of the few times I was actually excited about a basketball game and when I talked about it to someone a few years later, he said, "You sound like a baseball fan discribing that game."

    "Of course," I replied, "and you know that I am."

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    Extra innings is the only way to go. It gives each team a fair chance to win the game. The pro football "sudden death" system is terribly flawed. The basketball overtime is very similar to as extra innings and offers each team a fair chance to win the game. The hockey system is rather contrived, but is probably done to protect the health of the players.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluesteve32
    replied
    Originally posted by Appling
    That might do it: a home run derby to decide the winner of a tied MLB game. or maybe require 4 or 5 outs to retire the side in extra innings. Think outside the box! (Those other sports did it.)

    Or maybe a tie after nine innings is a legitamite result itself. Credit each team with 1/2 win and 1/2 loss. Wouldn't that be good solution in the long run?

    But baseball will probably continue in its stodgy ways, faithful to tradition and keeping rules unchanged as much as possible! (Is this bad?)
    Because it is baseball and baseball, especially at the professional level, soes not end in ties. Ties are for soccer.

    Leave a comment:


  • trosmok
    replied
    Get those kids off the street, and bring them home!

    The building tension of each extra inning is what sets baseball apart from and above the other team sports. No gimmicks needed to decide an evenly matched contest, simply continue until one more player crosses the plate than the opponent's team with equal opportunity.

    re; the old SF ballpark: "You know it's summertime at Candlestick when the fog rolls in, the wind kicks up, and you see the centerfielder slicing open a caribou to survive the ninth inning."~Bob Sarlette

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    KHenry14: I've been to a couple of 16 inning games and one 18 inning, (one was at Candlestick and I still haven't defrosted!)...

    was one of these decided by a willie mac homer that landed all the way up in the third deck?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpenrod
    replied
    Originally posted by Appling
    Football once accepted ties as a legitimate way to end a game, but no more. "Sudden death" overtime (first team to score wins) was seen as favoring the team that first gets the ball in overtime, so now we have a very different way to resolve the game: each team gets the ball in the other team's territory, and has one series of offensive plays to score by any means. The other team then gets a chance to match or improve. Almost certain to score at least a field goal. Very different from the game in regulation time.

    On a Technicality a tie is still an acceptable outcome in the NFL during the regular season. if the teams are tied at the end of regulation then they play an extra puarter of sudden death football (first team to score wins); however if niether team scores before time expires in the extra "quarter" the game ends in a ties. NCAA does use the you try and score then we try to score approach.

    Your question was should MLB change the rules of how the play out tie games, for me the answer is simply, NO! I love extra inning games and I detest the thought of a game ending anyway other than with the winner being decided by who scores the most runs. Baseball's approachseems to me, to be the fairest approach. both teams get an equal opportunity and the decision is clear and obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • KHenry14
    replied
    There's a reason Stanley Cup hockey is so exciting....they play till there's a winner. That makes the tension ratchet up exponentially. The same holds true for baseball. I've been to a couple of 16 inning games and one 18 inning, (one was at Candlestick and I still haven't defrosted!) and even though that's a long time to be at the ol' ball yard, it was a lot of fun. Every pitch seems to be magnified in importance. Walk a leadoff guy, and everything changes. Hang a curve and the ball games's over. Why change something that has worked well for a 100 years?

    KH14

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X