GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chaglang]

Here's where I'll leave it: if this is a flash in the pan team, ala 2003, I am MUCH more excited about them making the playoffs as the scrappy, undertalented team who doesn't know that they're in over their head. Those teams are fun, in an amateur tighrope walker kind of way. The fact that this is the product of an 8 year, Fitzcarraldo-like effort to make it to the brink of a single road Wild Card game is what dampens my enthusiasm. For everything that it too get to this point, they should be better.

[AllThingsKC]

1. The Royals can do no worse than a 163rd game on Monday in Seattle to see who wins the wildcard spot. Under MLB rules, that would NOT be considered a playoff game, but a extension of the regular season. This is the worst case scenario.

2. Either 1 Seattle loss OR 1 KC win in their 3 (or 4) games will get the Royals a playoff spot.

3. Either 1 Oakland loss OR 2 KC wins would get the Royals the 1st wildcard game, with that game being played here on Tuesday.

4. 2 Detroit losses AND 3 KC wins would give the Royals a 163rd game in Detroit to determine the division winner.

5. 3 Detroit losses AND 3 KC wins would give the Royals the division championship. This is the best case scenario.

So... After 29 years of SUCK, the Royals have given us back-to-back winning seasons, will possibly host a playoff game, and are still in the division race with THREE games to go.

BUT THE ROYALS SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING BETTER!

[chaglang]

The apology would be 8 years in the making and then wind up being several words short of a full sentence.

[macnw]

Go team!! We're pulling for you. Oh, wait what was I thinking? Only thing that matters is if and when the Royals lose. Nothing else. Go Royals!!!!

[aknowledgeableperson]

The thing is if the Royals do end up in the 4th playoff spot under terms of many previous years they would be IN THE PLAYOFFS. So, maybe not officially, in my mind and I would take it many others this would be a playoff team.

[phuqueue]

My position was never that adding a fifth playoff team was illegitimate, which is exactly why Max's original response about "well then the 1985 Royals didn't really win the World Series" misses the point the same way you just did, akp. I don't know how much more explicit I can be about this. A one game play-in is not the same thing as the real postseason. If we win the play-in and get to the ALDS, then that's fine. If we lose the play-in, it's pretty ludicrous to sell this as a real playoff appearance for a team that hasn't made it in three decades. MLB will still call it the "postseason," but the only thing that sets this apart from an ordinary tiebreaker is that the two wild cards don't actually need to be tied. We might actually finish tied, though, and if we do, we will play exactly the same sequence of games that would have been played under the old system, and the only difference will be semantic -- what we used to call a tiebreaker will now be called part of the postseason.

To be clear, I don't care that there is a second wild card. I even understand MLB's reasoning for making it a one game play-in. I don't put an asterisk next to the playoff run of any team that wins the wild card play-in. I just think it's silly to pretend that the loser was really a playoff team. And in the particular case of the Royals, it's kind of mindboggling to me, after 29 years, that they could lose that game and most of you would just shrug your shoulders, oh cool the playoff drought "ended." Although, to be fair, that is probably the single most Royals thing that could happen.

[mean]

I just think it's silly to pretend that the loser was really a playoff team.

It hardly seems fair that a play-in winner who goes on to get swept in the next series should be considered a PLAYOFF TEAM!!!! while a loser that might have won said series isn't.

[shinatoo]

I just think it's silly to pretend that the loser was really a playoff team.

It hardly seems fair that a play-in winner who goes on to get swept in the next series should be considered a PLAYOFF TEAM!!!! while a loser that might have won said series isn't.

The postseason is certainly much more difficult than it used to be. And profitable!

[chingon]

Where the fuck is Midtowncat when we need him most?

[AllThingsKC]

The Royals better apologize if they clinch a playoff spot since they won't really be a playoff team.

F'ing Turd Birds.

[KCMax]

If the Wild Card is not a playoff game, and I go to the game on Tuesday, DO I EVEN EXIST???????

[aknowledgeableperson]

My position was never that adding a fifth playoff team was illegitimate, which is exactly why Max's original response about "well then the 1985 Royals didn't really win the World Series" misses the point the same way you just did, akp. I don't know how much more explicit I can be about this. A one game play-in is not the same thing as the real postseason. If we win the play-in and get to the ALDS, then that's fine. If we lose the play-in, it's pretty ludicrous to sell this as a real playoff appearance for a team that hasn't made it in three decades. MLB will still call it the "postseason," but the only thing that sets this apart from an ordinary tiebreaker is that the two wild cards don't actually need to be tied. We might actually finish tied, though, and if we do, we will play exactly the same sequence of games that would have been played under the old system, and the only difference will be semantic -- what we used to call a tiebreaker will now be called part of the postseason.

To be clear, I don't care that there is a second wild card. I even understand MLB's reasoning for making it a one game play-in. I don't put an asterisk next to the playoff run of any team that wins the wild card play-in. I just think it's silly to pretend that the loser was really a playoff team. And in the particular case of the Royals, it's kind of mindboggling to me, after 29 years, that they could lose that game and most of you would just shrug your shoulders, oh cool the playoff drought "ended." Although, to be fair, that is probably the single most Royals thing that could happen.

I just don't agree with your point.

[KCtonic]

Yawn. Postseason is "after the end of the regular season." Don't give a #*%! whether the wildcard game is not something we had back in 80 and 85 when I last enjoyed watching postseason games. Negative Nelly's (not negative Ned's) will be what they are. I do want the Royals to make it to the playoffs...AND the world series though. Of course.

So based on where the Royals are right now, and assuming the Royals don't lay an egg, and assuming the Royals win the Wildcard game are these the most likely home games coming up?

9/30 Tuesday Wildcard Game Oakland A's @ KC
If KC wins that game:
10/5 LAA @ Royals
10/6 LAA at Royals (if needed)

[phuqueue]

My position was never that adding a fifth playoff team was illegitimate, which is exactly why Max's original response about "well then the 1985 Royals didn't really win the World Series" misses the point the same way you just did, akp. I don't know how much more explicit I can be about this. A one game play-in is not the same thing as the real postseason. If we win the play-in and get to the ALDS, then that's fine. If we lose the play-in, it's pretty ludicrous to sell this as a real playoff appearance for a team that hasn't made it in three decades. MLB will still call it the "postseason," but the only thing that sets this apart from an ordinary tiebreaker is that the two wild cards don't actually need to be tied. We might actually finish tied, though, and if we do, we will play exactly the same sequence of games that would have been played under the old system, and the only difference will be semantic -- what we used to call a tiebreaker will now be called part of the postseason.

To be clear, I don't care that there is a second wild card. I even understand MLB's reasoning for making it a one game play-in. I don't put an asterisk next to the playoff run of any team that wins the wild card play-in. I just think it's silly to pretend that the loser was really a playoff team. And in the particular case of the Royals, it's kind of mindboggling to me, after 29 years, that they could lose that game and most of you would just shrug your shoulders, oh cool the playoff drought "ended." Although, to be fair, that is probably the single most Royals thing that could happen.

I just don't agree with your point.

You can disagree with my point if you want to, but to imply that my point was that the fifth seed isn't the real playoffs but the fourth seed is misunderstands what my point even was.

I just think it's silly to pretend that the loser was really a playoff team.

It hardly seems fair that a play-in winner who goes on to get swept in the next series should be considered a PLAYOFF TEAM!!!! while a loser that might have won said series isn't.

Sweeps happen. Single games don't, except for a) spring training, which is meaningless; b) rain postponements, which were meant to be part of a series; c) tie breakers, which are relatively rare (fourteen since the first one in 1946) and must be shoehorned into a pre-set schedule; and now, d) the wild card. There's a reason the whole rest of the baseball schedule is built around series instead of single games, and this is it: Royals this year against Lester, 0-3; Royals this year against other A's starters, 5-0.

I'll be as happy as anybody else if we get past the play-in (for what it's worth, I have ALDS tickets and already booked my airfare so I'm in it to win it no matter what any of you might think of my posts here), but if we struggle against Lester as we always do and get unceremoniously bounced from the playoffs in a single game, I am not gonna cherish this moment the way some of you apparently will.

[KCtonic]

I am not gonna cherish this moment the way some of you apparently will.

I won't necessarily be happy about such an ending, but I sure as Heck will be happier than if the Royals didn't make it to a postseason Wildcard game. I personally "cherish" the fact that so many folks are still talking about the Royals this late in the year.

[aknowledgeableperson]

What all this shows is one needs to go back into baseball history and study various reactions to a change from the past. There was much discussion when divisions were established and the resulting playoff. How dare should baseball not have the best team (most victories) from each league in the World Series. And before that how expansion made the teams weaker and Maris' home run record had an asterisk because it took 162 games instead of 154. And how Hank Aaron's career home run record was cheapened because of expansion and additional games in each season.

A one game play-in is not the same thing as the real postseason. If we win the play-in and get to the ALDS, then that's fine. If we lose the play-in, it's pretty ludicrous to sell this as a real playoff appearance for a team that hasn't made it in three decades.

And that I don't agree with.

[brewcrew1000]

9/30 Tuesday Wildcard Game Oakland A's @ KC
If KC wins that game:
10/5 LAA @ Royals
10/6 LAA at Royals (if needed)

I actually like our chances vs Angels than against the Orioles. I really think we can get to the Angels pitching while I think the Orioles would destroy our pitching even minus Chris Davis and Weiters.

[phuqueue]

What all this shows is one needs to go back into baseball history and study various reactions to a change from the past. There was much discussion when divisions were established and the resulting playoff. How dare should baseball not have the best team (most victories) from each league in the World Series. And before that how expansion made the teams weaker and Maris' home run record had an asterisk because it took 162 games instead of 154. And how Hank Aaron's career home run record was cheapened because of expansion and additional games in each season.

It is just absolutely incredible to me that you are still missing the point. I am not making a traditionalist argument that change is per se bad. I am not even arguing against the format itself -- I have in fact explicitly said that I don't care about adding a second wild card and that I even understand why MLB made it a single game play-in. And if the Royals win the play-in, then great! All I'm saying is that if we don't make the ALDS, as far as I'm concerned that is not the playoffs. Dayton Moore will have had eight years and counting so that we could go one and done in a single game play-in and he could say he finally got us to the playoffs. The fans should not be satisfied with that.

A one game play-in is not the same thing as the real postseason. If we win the play-in and get to the ALDS, then that's fine. If we lose the play-in, it's pretty ludicrous to sell this as a real playoff appearance for a team that hasn't made it in three decades.

And that I don't agree with.

You're free to disagree with whatever you want, just know what you're disagreeing with.

[aknowledgeableperson]

It is just absolutely incredible to me that you are still missing the point.

Don't hold yourself up too high. That first part wasn't directed to you. It was just a general statement for everyone. Just pointing out that when there are changes there is usually discussions/debates/disagreements when the results of those changes come to life.

[AllThingsKC]

All I'm saying is that if we don't make the ALDS, as far as I'm concerned that is not the playoffs.

I'm with ya that a one-and-done playoff game may not "feel" like officially being part of "the playoffs." I can certainly understand your point of view there. I think we all would rather have an actual SERIES than a one-and-done "playoff" game. Also, I'm no fan of this stupid one-game wildcard thing. Why can't it be a series?

But, regardless of how you or I feel about this stupid one-game wildcard, it is still the playoffs by every other standard. Win or lose, it's going to go down in the MLB record books as a playoff game. It's a bracket that is part of the postseason. And even though I hate the idea of this game, I promise you Kauffman Stadium will have a playoff feel to it (if the game is in KC).

Dayton Moore will have had eight years and counting so that we could go one and done in a single game play-in and he could say he finally got us to the playoffs. The fans should not be satisfied with that.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. As late as maybe August, I was on the "Fire Ned Yost" train. We've had no shortage of games where if Ned Yost had listened to me yelling through the television, we would have won. If Ned Yost is fired, I want Dayton Moore fired too because, as you said, it has been 8 years. I don't have to tell you how much I H-A-T-E David Glass.

But, it is hard to argue with back-to-back winning seasons and a playoff appearance. Maybe we should have been at this point in Dayton's 2nd or 3rd year. You can make a strong case that IT SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN EIGHT YEARS. But for the time being, I have to to give them props for doing what I haven't seen in decades (not just the playoff, but the back-to-back winning seasons). Should that be the ultimate goal of this franchise? No. I suspect the expectations will be raised next year and Dayton must continue to meet those expectations. But as long as this team continues to improve each year (and we've seen improvement each year over the last 3 years), then Dayton probably has team about where he wants them. This team isn't where I want them, but I won't argue with results that are trending upward.

So, as much as Glass/Moore/Yost are easy people to hate, they are doing something right, at least in the short term. Fans should absolutely be satisfied with getting that longest playoff drought in North America off their back. I will not only be satisfied with it, I will BRAG about it. I will wear my Wildcard shirt and hold up my Wildcard banner. I think that's perfectly fine to do this year. At some point soon, Dayton needs to produce a team that can win the division. A wildcard next year should rightfully bring on some criticism of Moore. But for now, enjoy it, and brag about it.