How much weight do you give to the post season?

[oolalaa]

The NFL's playoff structure involves a tremendous amount of luck and randomness, yet you argue that MLB should go the other way since the NFL is leaving it behind?
Huh?

What are you talking about? I'm advocating MORE post season games to reduce luck and randomness.

[ian2813]

There is no perfect playoff format. The unpredictability and chance of an underdog winning is what makes it exciting. If you are so concerned about who is the "best," just look at the regular season standings and ignore what follows. I find the first rounds of the other three major American sports to be somewhat of a bore because you have mediocre teams playing among what are supposed to be the best. There should have to be at least some high level of achievement to qualify.

Why would you contradict yourself so blatently?

Letting the mediocre teams into the post sesson gives the underdogs a fair chance. If you are the best team in the league, beating the bad teams shouldn't be a problem. And I have already said that scrapping the playoffs entirely is a viable option.

I don't see what he said as self-contradictory. I think what he meant is that there should be a high bar to get into the playoffs in the first place, then after that the underdogs have a chance. The NBA and NHL's playoff systems allow in teams that are clearly in the league's lower half in terms of quality, so their biggest underdogs are much worse than baseball's biggest underdogs.

Yes, that's unfortunate. I get the sense that the people in power are stuck in the past. As far as I can tell, very little has been changed since the 1920s to alter or improve the sport (Gameplay or otherwise. Apart from lowering the mound in '69). The NBA and NFL are leaving MLB behind, yet, still, nothing changes, even though there is much that needs to be tweaked or scrapped to make it more appealing to fans, and a more entertaining product in general.

For some of us, the steadiness of baseball and its clear link to the past are part of its appeal.

[ipitch]

The Spurs weren't the best team in the West though.

#1 isn't #1? lol. Looks like your plan for no playoffs in MLB has another serious flaw.

[oolalaa]

I don't see what he said as self-contradictory. I think what he meant is that there should be a high bar to get into the playoffs in the first place, then after that the underdogs have a chance. The NBA and NHL's playoff systems allow in teams that are clearly in the league's lower half in terms of quality, so their biggest underdogs are much worse than baseball's biggest underdogs.



For some of us, the steadiness of baseball and its clear link to the past are part of its appeal.

Sure, I understand that the underdogs in MLB (Even in an expanded format that I propose) are better and closer to the best teams than the underdogs in the NBA. He didn't word it that clearly.

And baseball's clear link to the past is mostly appealing to people who lived through and witnessed the past, not the younger generation that baseball SHOULD be trying to appeal to.

[oolalaa]

#1 isn't #1? lol. Looks like your plan for no playoffs in MLB has another serious flaw.

LMAO.

If there was no post season then the regular season would become the ONLY focus. No resting, benching players in the last 2/3 weeks when you've clinched a playoff seed etc

[ian2813]

And baseball's clear link to the past is mostly appealing to people who lived through and witnessed the past, not the younger generation that baseball SHOULD be trying to appeal to.

I'm only 30, and that link to the past was what part of what drew me to the game in the first place back when I was 13. People need to stop trying to turn baseball into something it isn't for the sake of "appealing to the younger crowd." I would hope there are enough intelligent, thoughtful young people out there who are capable of appreciating the beauty of this game and its history, and don't need cheap gimmicks to take an interest.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

More post season games would be disliked by baseball fans? I find that hard to believe.

I've been a baseball can since 1976 and, yes, I would not like more postseason. Three rounds is more than enough. Also cold weather would be a problem as well.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I'm only 30, and that link to the past was what part of what drew me to the game in the first place back when I was 13. People need to stop trying to turn baseball into something it isn't for the sake of "appealing to the younger crowd." I would hope there are enough intelligent, thoughtful young people out there who are capable of appreciating the beauty of this game and its history, and don't need cheap gimmicks to take an interest.

I agree! I fell in love with baseball at age 8 partly because my town's public library had a large collection of baseball books. One of my favorites was the World Series book that covered the World Series from 1903-1972. I was just memorized by all those old black and white photos of the earliest World Series.

Football and basketball fans simply don't care about the history of the NFL or NBA.

[oolalaa]

I'm only 30, and that link to the past was what part of what drew me to the game in the first place back when I was 13. People need to stop trying to turn baseball into something it isn't for the sake of "appealing to the younger crowd." I would hope there are enough intelligent, thoughtful young people out there who are capable of appreciating the beauty of this game and its history, and don't need cheap gimmicks to take an interest.

1. Essentially, people like you (And I really don't wish for this term to come across as derogatory) want nothing to change. You are stuck in the past (Your relatively young age is irrelevant. I know a lot of older baseball fans are the same). It's one thing to marvel at baseball's wonderfully rich, deep and storied history and another to steadfastly refuse to move with the times to preserve a precious "link to the past".

2. The post season in baseball is a cheap gimmick. Almost always has been. Style over substance.

3. For young people to appreciate the history of the game, first they need to appreciate the PRESENT of the game. Less and less young people are interested in baseball. It's too slow (The length each game takes, rather than the nature of the gameplay. MLB could easily chop 30 mins off of each game if they wanted, but, of course, they're bone-idle), and each game is worth too little.

Move with the times, otherwise you're in danger of getting left behind.

[oolalaa]

I agree! I fell in love with baseball at age 8 partly because my town's public library had a large collection of baseball books. One of my favorites was the World Series book that covered the World Series from 1903-1972. I was just memorized by all those old black and white photos of the earliest World Series.

Football and basketball fans simply don't care about the history of the NFL or NBA.

I, for one, LOOOOVE the history of the NBA. I've researched it quite heavily over the last couple of years. It's fascinating.

[Dude Paskert]

What are you talking about? I'm advocating MORE post season games to reduce luck and randomness.

Yes, to catch up with the NFL, which features a great deal of luck and randomness in its playoffs.
Your position really makes no sense.

[Matthew C.]

MLB could never guarantee the 2 best teams in the league ending up in the WS every single year like the NBA can in the NBA Finals, but with enough games (Three 9 game series to get to the WS) they could get somewhat close. Don't you think?

It would be harder. In the NBAs first few rounds, you have teams that win 70% of the time going against teams that are winning 50-55% of the time. Not only that, without worrying about minutes, the best players on the 70% team (the ones that led the great record) get the ball even more.

In the MLB playoffs, the best team may have win 60 w% and the worst maybe 54 w%. It would take a long, long series for the true talent gap to shine through in that case. Plus, in any lower scoring game (NHL, FIFA, MLB), each lucky bounce or bad call is that much more of an equalizer In the NBA with so many possessions and wider margins of victory, each single bad luck event and bad bounce is less important. This is how mediocre teams win in the NHL all the time. A few lucky bounces of the puck in a series vs. a superior team and you win. So even a 15 game MLB series between two 54-63% teams would still be close to a crapshoot.

I don't think a 9 game series would change anything much...maybe a little.

[Matthew C.]

Football and basketball fans simply don't care about the history of the NFL or NBA.

This is a great generalization. I for one care a great deal about NBA history (and some about NFL history) and have hung out with many others who do to.

[Rich the Giants fan]

To give precedence to the post season, or at least greater precedence than it has now. Reducing the regular season to 115-120 games will keep the same everyday feel that so many people love and cherish but, importantly, make each individual game worth more. The overwhelming majority of regular season baseball games have very little atmosphere. Unless you're an ultra die hard fan, the result really isn't that important. And why would it be? There will be a game tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, to make up for a loss of bad showing. The daily grind is what turns a lot of people off, in my opinion at least.

I think a reduced regular season, and a greatly extended post season would generate a lot more viewers and fans. The playoffs are basically a gimmick (As they are right now). Either scrap them or expand them, in which case the regular season would need to be shortened. Embrace one or the other.

I honestly think MLB needs some major structural changes (Aswell as several minor rule changes). At it's core baseball is such a great sport, but I don't think it's potential is being fully realised.

Totally and completely disagree. I don't think it's just me that enjoys the daily grind of the 162 game season. In fact, I like the daily grind of the regular season more than I like the post-season. I think, other than reducing the number of teams in the post-season, I wouldn't change much.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I'm not 100% sure of what you mean by "watered down" but obviously there are differing degress of 'watering down'. The baseball post season is undoubtedly the most 'watered down', though, and it's not remotely close.

Regarding the 4 major US sports:

The NBAs post season is ALMOST EVERYTHING. You should be, and are, judged on how you do in the post season. Championships are the goal that everyone strives for. In terms of importance/significance for players and fans alike....85-90% playoffs, 10-15% regular season. Also, a team can potentially play over a third of the number of games that there are in the regular season in the post season.

The NHL? Very very similar in all ways to the NBA.

The NFL is closer to 50-50. Every regular season games carries such an absurd amount of weight and importance (This is part of it's popularity). 4 games is all you need to win the super bowl, but there are only 16 games in the reg season.

In MLB, the most number of games a team can potentially play in the playoffs is 20. That's one sixth of the number of games in the reg season. That is simply too big a discrepancy.

Huh? That makes none sense. In basketball 16 teams make the playoffs. Same with hockey. In the NFL 12 teams make the playoffs. In baseball, even with the extra WC, there are only 10, or 1/3 of the league. In the NBA and NHL over half the teams in the entire league make the post-season. The post-season in those leagues are essentially, a second season, and one that is way too long at that. Who cares about the regular season in those leagues? Where's the relevance when over half the league makes it to the playoffs?

[Rich the Giants fan]

In the NBA you have both. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

In the NBA, teams with records below .500 seem to regularly make the post-season. I'll pass on that.

[Rich the Giants fan]

Having a standard league system (i.e whoever finishes with the most wins or points is crowned the best team in the league, like we have in the UK for football) with no post season is a far more accurate way of determining the best team in the league than having a 162 regular season and then a post season with only 2 or 4 teams, IF you are using that post season as a way to determine who the best team in baseball is.

Either scrap the post season or expand it (Ideally in unison with reducing the length of the regular season to give the playoffs precedence) to create less luck and randomness. It's really simple.

Again, a big huh? None sense. Having two leagues, the AL and NL, play 162 games and then having the top two teams in each league play each other to determine who is the best is by far a better way to determine who the best in the league is. The more teams you add, the more unfair it becomes to the teams that had the best records over the course of a long season. And having a long season is the best way to determine the top two teams in the league. Adding teams makes the regular season less relevant.

[Rich the Giants fan]

No. The best way is to play 162 games and crown the team with the best record the champ. But that kills ratings.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

......this.

[Rich the Giants fan]

More post season games would be disliked by baseball fans? I find that hard to believe.

Some fans would dislike it, that I'm sure of.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I'm only 30, and that link to the past was what part of what drew me to the game in the first place back when I was 13. People need to stop trying to turn baseball into something it isn't for the sake of "appealing to the younger crowd." I would hope there are enough intelligent, thoughtful young people out there who are capable of appreciating the beauty of this game and its history, and don't need cheap gimmicks to take an interest.

...and this.

[EdTarbusz]

More post season games would be disliked by baseball fans? I find that hard to believe.

The baseball post-season is already too long. It was at it;s best from 1905 until 1968 when two teams went to the post-season. The wild card era has been too watered down.

[Rich the Giants fan]

The baseball post-season is already too long. It was at it;s best from 1905 until 1968 when two teams went to the post-season. The wild card era has been too watered down.

and this, too.

[drdg]

Originally Posted by oolalaa
What are you talking about?

WHAT is on second!!!!

Dude Paskert;2066995
Yes, to catch up with the NFL, which features a great deal of luck and randomness in its playoffs.
Your position really makes no sense. I agreed

since he wants to compare baseball to the NFL,NBA,NHL,Worldwide Soccer,etc
and since he wants baseball to be more like those sports
my simple solution is to confuse him,

and this is the best example that I can find
ENJOY

[NJYankeeFan]

It would be harder. In the NBAs first few rounds, you have teams that win 70% of the time going against teams that are winning 50-55% of the time. Not only that, without worrying about minutes, the best players on the 70% team (the ones that led the great record) get the ball even more.

In the MLB playoffs, the best team may have win 60 w% and the worst maybe 54 w%. It would take a long, long series for the true talent gap to shine through in that case. Plus, in any lower scoring game (NHL, FIFA, MLB), each lucky bounce or bad call is that much more of an equalizer In the NBA with so many possessions and wider margins of victory, each single bad luck event and bad bounce is less important. This is how mediocre teams win in the NHL all the time. A few lucky bounces of the puck in a series vs. a superior team and you win. So even a 15 game MLB series between two 54-63% teams would still be close to a crapshoot.

I don't think a 9 game series would change anything much...maybe a little.

Which goes to the other fallacy. That baseball has less parity than other sports.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[ian2813]

1. Essentially, people like you (And I really don't wish for this term to come across as derogatory) want nothing to change. You are stuck in the past (Your relatively young age is irrelevant. I know a lot of older baseball fans are the same). It's one thing to marvel at baseball's wonderfully rich, deep and storied history and another to steadfastly refuse to move with the times to preserve a precious "link to the past".

People like you (and likewise, I don't say this to be derogatory) don't get it. Advocates for change almost always seem to have trouble understanding traditionalists. They view us as a bunch of non-thinkers who oppose change simply because it's unfamiliar and beyond our comprehension. That's not the case at all. We view traditions as giving our current day context.

Without context, baseball is just a bunch of guys throwing a ball around. With context, it's a game that's been passed down for many generations and has become an integral part of our culture. As such, we can make a personal connection to it. If we're slow to make changes, it's because we realize how precious this thing we have is, and we don't want to risk irreversible damage.

2. The post season in baseball is a cheap gimmick. Almost always has been. Style over substance.

The modern-day World Series began when the two leagues were fierce rivals, and a lot of people surely had an interest in which one would prove to be superior in head-to-head competition. The participants played different sets of teams to get to the top of their respective leagues, so their won-lost records didn't tell the whole story. That seems like more than a cheap gimmick to me, but even if it is, the game's history would be a lot less interesting without it.

3. For young people to appreciate the history of the game, first they need to appreciate the PRESENT of the game. Less and less young people are interested in baseball. It's too slow (The length each game takes, rather than the nature of the gameplay. MLB could easily chop 30 mins off of each game if they wanted, but, of course, they're bone-idle), and each game is worth too little.

I wouldn't have a problem with the umpires doing more to speed up the games, but I think there's something you're missing: Many of the basketball and football fans you want to attract simply aren't inclined to like baseball. Those sports appeal to different desires (i.e. the desire for fast-paced action, the desire to see people get hit hard), and baseball isn't a sport that can fulfill them.

I once played on an intramural football team with a good friend of mine who's a huge football and basketball fan. At one of the practices he mentioned that he tried watching a baseball game, but he couldn't sit through more than a few minutes because it was just too boring for him. When I said that baseball was my favorite sport in the same conversation, another guy on the team acted shocked, as though he couldn't conceive of anyone actually liking baseball.

Another time I was reading a football discussion forum where the thread topic was "What's your second favorite sport after football?" One guy said his was baseball and a bunch of people started giving him crap for it. A good number of people who favor football and basketball just aren't the types to enjoy baseball, so trying to alter the sport for their sake is a waste of time, and would only water down the things we true fans love about the game.

Move with the times, otherwise you're in danger of getting left behind.

I see this attitude all the time, and it drives me nuts. As I said above, changes to the game's structure aren't to be taken lightly, so simply "moving with the times" isn't necessarily a sign that one is doing the right thing. Some look at baseball's resistance to change and see stodginess, but others look at it and see strength. Baseball commands respect precisely because it's not willing to change based on the most recent whims.