I should know this, but: Why did the Yankees win the division when they have the same record as Boston? Is it because they got there first, or what?
It’s because, in head-to-head games between NY and Boston this season, the Yankees beat the Red Sox more times than the Red Sox beat the Yankees.
Because they won more games against the Red Sox than vice versa. It’s the same reason that the Angels have the home field advantage vs the Yankees in the first round even though they have identical records.
If I read yeasterday’s paper correctly, then had the wildcard position not been available to Boston, i.e., only the #1 team goes on to the playoffs, then they would have played a tie-breaker. Is this correct?
Yep. If it comes down to going to the playoffs or not, baseball prefers to settle it on the field. Since both were going, head-to-head record determines who’s the division winner and who is the wild card.
I’ve only been in the US for five years, but i think i heard on the weekend that, back in the 1990s, they would have decided the Division winner and the Wild Card berths (as in the current Yankees-Red Sox scenario) with a game.
But they soon realized that, when both teams were guaranteed to make the playoffs, they didn’t much care whether they were the Division winner or the Wild Card, and would just rest all their good players for the important games ahead.
Is this true?
I know that as far back as 2001 they weren’t playing a tiebreaker for the division title, as St. Louis and Houston tied for the NL Central. Officially, St. Louis was the Wild Card, but they made some people mad by declaring themselves co-champions (which was probably technically accurate, since Houston only won the tiebreaker by beating them the last day to tie the division and win the season series.)
I don’t think so. They announced that the Yankees clinched the AL East after Saturday’s game (rather to my surprise, as I had thought Friday after the game that they were saying that a 2-1 Red Sox victory in the 3 game series would mean a 1 game playoff), and the Red Sox didn’t actually clinch a wild card slot until the Indians lost on Sunday. Had the Indians won and the Sox lost, they would have (from what I understand) had to play a 1 game playoff for the wild card slot.
Anyone know what the BOS v. NYY record was this year? I thought they were saying 10-9 at some point; I’m going to guess that must have been before the last two games, giving a final record of 11-10.
The final record was 10-9. If Boston had swept the Yanks, they would have won both the division outright and the season series 10-9.
This article gives the status of the races just before the final series, when it was 9-7 Yanks. Boston going 2-1 made the final 10-9.
That’s what the broadcasters said during the one of the Yanks-Sox games this weekend.
waterj2, as I understand it Neurotik is right. The Yankees clinched Saturday because after those games, they’d won the season series against Boston. So even if they tied with Boston (and Cleveland, who didn’t matter), they’d win the division and get into the playoffs.
This was only the case if there had been a 3-way tie with Cleveland.
Yes, because the Red Sox would not have been tied with the Yanks, but rather with Cleveland, both one game back of the Yankees.
The Yankees won the season series 10 games to 8. Any playoff spots not decided by Sunday a “playoff game” would have been Monday. A coin flip took place earlier in September to decide the home field.
doesn’t really matter anyway, Here come the Cardinals!! 
Yeah, that’s where i heard it, i think.
Ah, but Cleveland did matter.
If the Yankees, Boston, and Cleveland had all ended up with the same record, then the would have had to have a playoff to determine the AL East Division winner, because the loser would then have had to play Cleveland for the Wild Card spot.
As long as both New York and Boston were ahead of Cleveland, they wouldn’t need a playoff game. But if all three teams were equal there would have been two playoff games: Boston v. New York, with the loser playing Cleveland the following night.
Right- they were still in play for the wildcard, but after they lost and the Yankees won on Saturday, they didn’t matter from the NY perspective.
The Cardinals and Astros were in a similar situation in 2001. Both were tied for the NL Central at 93-69. That was the best record in the NL so both teams were going to the playoffs. But the Astros won the season series 9-7, so they got to be the NL Central champ and homefield advantage in the first round of the playoffs against the Braves. (They got swept). The Cardinals had to travel to Arizona to start their series, which the DBacks won in five.
Well, that isn’t the impression I had Friday, but it does seem to make sense in light of what happened.
When they clinched it, it was 10-8, it ended 10-9. (AFAICT, what I had been thinking earlier was that I heard that NYY had won 10 out of 19 on Saturday, and erroneously thoght that that was in reference to games played thus far, rather than the total season series.)
Okay, see, this is what I don’t get. Boston and New York wound up with the same record but New York won the division because they had more wins over Boston. So I don’t understand how Cleveland winning all three of their weekend games would have affected the tie-breaker between New York and Boston. It seems that New York still would have won the division and Boston should have had to play Cleveland for the wild card spot.
If Boston, New York and Cleveland had all finished with the same record, they would have all been tied for the AL Wild Card, and Boston and New York would have been tied for the AL East. Before the Wild Card could be settled, they would have to have a division champion, and MLB decided it would be unfair in that situation to go to a statistical tiebreaker.
To elaborate on what brianjedi said, the key thing here is that **Cleveland would also be tied with New York. ** the New York-Boston tiebreaker is basically a matter of convenience; “Ah, since they’re both goin’ to the playoff anyway, why play another game and risk injury?” Boston and New York have already clearly established that they belong in the playoffs; the tiebreaker is just for seeding.
However, if Cleveland ties them, then New York is on equal footing with Cleveland as well as Boston. New York has NOT clearly established that they belong in the playoffs in that circumstance; it’s not just a matter of seeding, it’s that TWO other teams have tied them in a circumstance where there’s not that many tickets to the playoffs. They have not earned a playoff spot. A playoff spot must be won on the field.
Of course, you also have the fact that in a 3-way tie, you can’t use head-to-head records because it could be circular. New York could win the season series against Boston, who could win the season series against Cleveland, who could win the season series against New York.
Of course, this is a clear disadvantage for New York and Boston, who must win two games to make the playoffs, while Cleveland would only need to win one.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but New York or Boston would each have only had to win one game to advance. One would win the division; the loser would have to win the game against Cleveland. The disadvantage would be that the loser would have to play two games, while Cleveland only would have to play one.