[Illusion]

Is five games too short for the AL/NLDS?

[onlooker]

No, its just fine at 5 games.

I wish the NBA would of kept the 1st round a 5 game series, but hey, its all about the money.

[Bulldog]

I think it should be 7 games...
Not because of money issues but I just think that for teams who've had fine seasons to lose it all in 3
games seems a bit unfair...
As a Braves fan I've felt shitty when the Braves lost in 3 or 4 and I thought they had the better team...
Losing or winning in 7 seems a bit more "legit" to me...

[moses millsap]

I voted no yesterday, thought I posted in this thread already, but guess not.

[ivyconniver]

I say yes, make it 7. After playing 162 games division champs are usually decided by 2-3 games. Why does it make sense to choose the next winner in FIVE games? Make it 7, or do away with the divisonal series all together.

[Willie Bee]

If you compare a 5- or 7-game series to the 162 game regular season, both are going to seem too short and unfair to a team that won 90, 95, 100 games. I sort of wish the LCS's were still five games and the LDS's were just best-of-3, like most normal regular season series are.

I voted no, leave the LDS a best-of-5.

[Bulldog]

If you compare a 5- or 7-game series to the 162 game regular season, both are going to seem too short and unfair to a team that won 90, 95, 100 games. I sort of wish the LCS's were still five games and the LDS's were just best-of-3, like most normal regular season series are.

I voted no, leave the LDS a best-of-5.

I dont understand the logic behind this Willie...
specially since I know that you're a big baseball fan like me...
Why would you want to see a 3 gm playoff series?
If 7 sound unfair because its too short, I dont see how 5 would sound better??
And Im not only thinking about the teams who win 100 gms, Im also thinking the teams that won 85 and barely got in...
After 182 gms of grinding it, why would their fans only get to watch 1 home game...
I mean, just make it a 7 gm series like the other ones...

[Willie Bee]

I dont understand the logic behind this Willie...

Who said anything about logic?

My point is that unless you make the series best-of-11 or something like that, the playoff series will seem too short compared to a 162-game regular season. Over the years, I've just become accustomed to thinking of a 3-game series during the regular season as a 'mini playoff.' A best-of-5, especially during the first round, is long enough for me. It should test a 4-man rotation, which is what most clubs resort to in the postseason. Well, it should unless you pull off the sweep. But honestly, if a team wins the first three of either a 5- or 7-game series, to me there's little doubt that team came to play and was more prepared than their opposition.

Sure, the '04 Red Sox renounded from an 0-3 hole in the ALCS and emerged the 'better team' in that series. But that is one time - - - ONCE! - - - in all of the best-of-7's ever played in major league history.

When the LCS were all best-of-5 (I think it changed to a 7-game format around 1984, 1985), there was a greater sense of urgency in the ALCS and NLCS. Some of the greatest baseball I ever saw in my life, maybe the greatest baseball I've ever seen, was the 1980 NLCS between the Phils and Astros. I just don't have a problem with a shorter, 5-game playoff series.

I also would like to see the season shortened back to 154 games and for each club to have at least one real doubleheader at their park each year, but that's a discussion for another time

[ivyconniver]

Remeber, keep it in context of the days when there was just an East and West, no Central or wild card. The 162 games were your playoff to see who got to the AL and NLCS.