I admit it...

[Slaky]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

[R-V]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

<endorses idea with notary stamp>

Also, since you'd be eliminating a couple rounds worth of playoffs, you could have a really long World Series, like over an entire month or something. Just spitballin' here.

[Slaky]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

<endorses idea with notary stamp>

Also, since you'd be eliminating a couple rounds worth of playoffs, you could have a really long World Series, like over an entire month or something. Just spitballin' here.

For serious - a nine game World Series would be the best.

[BH]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

<endorses idea with notary stamp>

Also, since you'd be eliminating a couple rounds worth of playoffs, you could have a really long World Series, like over an entire month or something. Just spitballin' here.

For serious - a nine game World Series would be the best.

9 game series, win by 2.

[PenPho]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

<endorses idea with notary stamp>

Also, since you'd be eliminating a couple rounds worth of playoffs, you could have a really long World Series, like over an entire month or something. Just spitballin' here.

For serious - a nine game World Series would be the best.

9 game series, win by 2.

Make it, take it?
Losers walk? 

[Internet Apex]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

<endorses idea with notary stamp>

Also, since you'd be eliminating a couple rounds worth of playoffs, you could have a really long World Series, like over an entire month or something. Just spitballin' here.

For serious - a nine game World Series would be the best.

9 game series, win by 2.

Make it, take it?
Losers walk? 

One banana, two banana, three banana...

[Eli]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

<endorses idea with notary stamp>

Also, since you'd be eliminating a couple rounds worth of playoffs, you could have a really long World Series, like over an entire month or something. Just spitballin' here.

For serious - a nine game World Series would be the best.

9 game series, win by 2.

Make it, take it?
Losers walk? 

One banana, two banana, three banana...

Bore.

[Richard Chuggar]

I suppose I'll be the guy to say, "I hate the Wild Card." Why should the St. Louis Cardinals or their fans even exist at all earn an opportunity to play the Brewers again after being unable to prove their supremacy to them all season long? Division Champions at least win the battles within their own division, so I have no problem with the Giants going 9-7 playing few common opponents as the Packers and then beating them in a playoff game. Hell, the Bears proved they were the best team in the NFC North last year. Why should anyone from that division have the opportunity to play them?

I'm starting to gain a real hatred of increased playoff/playoffs in general. ESPECIALLY in baseball where you have 162 games to figure out who the best teams are. There is no mistake at the end - except for the fact that teams are shoehorned into three divisions, some of which don't make a lick of sense (I'M LOOKING AT YOU AL WEST) which allows for inferior teams to win divisions based on the sheer luck of being in a division stocked with poor teams. If the leagues just went to a single table format and had a balanced schedule with the two winners playing in the World Series I would piss happiness for the rest of my days. BUT WHY MAKE THINGS SO FUCKING SIMPLE WHEN THERE'S BEER MONEY TO BE HAD?

<endorses idea with notary stamp>

Also, since you'd be eliminating a couple rounds worth of playoffs, you could have a really long World Series, like over an entire month or something. Just spitballin' here.

For serious - a nine game World Series would be the best.

9 game series, win by 2.

Make it, take it?
Losers walk? 

One banana, two banana, three banana...

racist

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I have no fucking idea who Jeremy Lin is.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I have no fucking idea who Jeremy Lin is.

[Tonker]

... I can't find out who holds the record for the most earned runs given up in the major leagues.  I looked at some of the usual suspects - Jamie Moyer, Bert Blyleven, Randy Johnson and so on - and the best I could come up with was Nolan Ryan at 1,911.  Did anybody ever give up 2,000?  Why do I care?

EDIT: found it.  Ryan is in fact fourth on the all-time list, Moyer fifth (1,892) and Blyleven (1,830) ninth.  Johnson is way down in the thirties somewhere with just 1,513.  The three who gave up more ERs than Ryan?  In reverse order:

3. Don Sutton 1,914
2. Phil Niekro 2,012
1. Cy Young (natch) 2,147.

Should have got that, really.  Cy Young pitched a total of 7,356 innings in 906 games.  I know you can't really compare those stats to the modern era, but nonetheless that's fucking mind-boggling.

Anyway, I've answered my own question.  At least, part of it: I still don't know why I care.

At ease, men.

[Tonker]

DPD.  Anybody want to guess which of the top fifty earned-run-giver-uppers of all time got on to the list by being above average for quite a long time, rather than being really, really good for a really long time?  No?  Well, I'm going to do this anyway.

Very few of the top fifty have an ERA over four - indeed, just six.  Of those, one has already been discussed (Moyer, 4.24) and one you probably won't have heard of (Earl Whitehill, 4.36).  The other four, though, are modern era players:

RH, ERA 4.13, IP 3439.0, 239-137, 1987-2007, 2 World Series rings
LH, ERA 4.27, IP 3302.2, 219-156, 1989-2008, 1 World Series ring
RH, ERA 4.41, IP 3226.1, 200-180, 1992-2011, 1 World Series ring
RH, ERA 4.47, IP 3121.2, 174-176, 1996-2011, 1 World Series ring

I was going to add the years of the WS rings but I actually think that would make it too easy.  Without resorting to BP or mlb.com, anybody know who they are?

[Richard Chuggar]

DPD.  Anybody want to guess which of the top fifty earned-run-giver-uppers of all time got on to the list by being above average for quite a long time, rather than being really, really good for a really long time?  No?  Well, I'm going to do this anyway.

Very few of the top fifty have an ERA over four - indeed, just six.  Of those, one has already been discussed (Moyer, 4.24) and one you probably won't have heard of (Earl Whitehill, 4.36).  The other four, though, are modern era players:

RH, ERA 4.13, IP 3439.0, 239-137, 1987-2007, 2 World Series rings
LH, ERA 4.27, IP 3302.2, 219-156, 1989-2008, 1 World Series ring
RH, ERA 4.41, IP 3226.1, 200-180, 1992-2011, 1 World Series ring
RH, ERA 4.47, IP 3121.2, 174-176, 1996-2011, 1 World Series ring

I was going to add the years of the WS rings but I actually think that would make it too easy.  Without resorting to BP or mlb.com, anybody know who they are?

nobody cares

[Yeti]

3. Tim Wakefield
4. Livan Hernandez

[Yeti]

3. Tim Wakefield
4. Livan Hernandez

Well, I believe Tim would have two rings, so that's wrong