Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLB considering changes to postseason

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post

    I totally agree with you. I was just being a smarta$$. Sorry.
    Ok ok. hahaha.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    Comment


    • #17
      No, I don't like this. But then, I haven't liked anything about the wildcard era. The foremost matter to this fan is that younger fans today don't give a hoot about which league is which, AL v NL. If anyone really wishes to shake things up, and I'm guessing MLB does wish such, then eliminate the league format in the postseason altogether and forget the whole premise of a pennant. Allow interleague play in the postseason..... that might make for better ratings!

      Personally, I would be against that too. In other words, I don't know of anything as a solution when the overriding problem is the firefly attention span of younger fans today ( younger than 30, I'm guessing, and most especially younger than 20).

      Baseball is designed for older fans. We kid ourselves that it is a kids game. It should be a kids game, but then I drive by perfectly manicured and well designed complexes in city parks which sit empty all summer, day or evening.

      IMHO, baseball's larger problem is tanking by franchises. Seriously. We just had a season which showed the exact haves v have-nots which had been predicted in the 1970s at the birth of free agency. The exact reverse happened from free agency, in that the 1980s had epic parity. Now, we have epicly disparate franchise performance. This is a much larger problem for the interest of fans during the regular season. Fans of the Astros knew in April that their team would make the postseason, only hoping that their team would not do as the Red Sox were doing. In other words, the only news throughout the season was why the Red Sox were NOT doing well. Fans of at least half a dozen teams lost interest because it was clear their franchises were run by David Glass ownership styles.

      Okay..... so I will rant over why football has grown in popularity. This growth is the result of the NFL having only 1/10 th of the number of regular season games, by design. Each game therefore carries 10x over as much importance for fans and for owners. This explains the hype of the NFL to this baseball fan. An individual game in football's regular season means more because mathematically it must mean more. The appeal of baseball flies straight in the face of all that. A fan can say "we'll get them tomorrow", literally the next day and no longer than the day after that. If baseball doesn't understand that, then they must address the appeal of baseball in the first place to today's younger crowd. First, one must understand one's appeal and market it.

      And yet, Manfred's larger problem on this plan will have to be the scheduling of all these postseason games. The logistics will be a challenge.
      Catfish Hunter, RIP. Mark Fidrych, RIP. Skip Caray, RIP. Tony Gwynn, #19, RIP

      A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill. (Please take note that I've recently become aware of how this quote applies to a certain US president. This is a coincidence, and the quote was first added to this signature too far back to remember when).

      Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson later. -- Dan Quisenberry.

      Comment


      • #18
        Things I Like
        1. The team with the best record in the league is rewarded more than other division winners;
        2. The division winners have a clear advantage over any wild card team (in that they get to select their opponents);
        3. The top wild card team has a clear edge over the other three in home-field advantage;
        4. Making home field advantage (at least in the first round) far more meaningful;
        5. The wild card round is a best-of-three, not a single-game elimination; and
        6. The selection drama/strategy. The alternate is a standard seed pairing (#2 vs #7, #3 vs #6 and #4 vs #5) that never varies.

        Things I Don't Like
        1. Going from 33% of the league making the postseason to 47% of the league making it, reducing the value of the long regular season; and
        2. Committing MLB to the three-division format, which will foul up the next round of expansion.
        "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
        "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
        "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
        "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

        Comment


        • #19
          A compromise of my format and MLB's proposal is that seeds 2-4 are drawn from the teams that literally have the second through forth-best records, regardless of where they placed in their divisions. This means that potentially, a division winner may not be a chooser of an opponent, but would be a chosen opponent instead.
          The playoffs should expand eventually, but only if MLB itself expands.

          See my blog for more info.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by PF#9 View Post
            A compromise of my format and MLB's proposal is that seeds 2-4 are drawn from the teams that literally have the second through forth-best records, regardless of where they placed in their divisions. This means that potentially, a division winner may not be a chooser of an opponent, but would be a chosen opponent instead.
            Then why have divisions at all? I understand the idea that it's fairer to have the teams with the best records in the postseason (though if we really want to increase fairness, we would use point differential or baseruns, not W-L record). But if you want to do it that way, you might as well just have two 15 team leagues, with no divisions.

            One rationale for divisions, of course, is regionality, teams can play teams that are based closer to them more often. But that being the case, then one should take into account strength of schedule. A 90-72 team in one division might not really be as good as an 88-74 team in another division. You can avoid all this by just having every team in one league play every other team in that league an equal number of times, or at least as close to equal as the numbers allow.



            https://sports.yahoo.com/report-nati...233937338.html



            Last edited by Stolensingle; 02-12-2020, 04:41 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              So there will be three rounds of playoffs (Wild Card round, round where the "bye" team plays, LCS) plus the World Series following a 6 month season. If you don't have to actively participate it's great I guess. The p;layers who actually have to play, the fans who will now have to shell out for extra rounds of playoff tickets and then have to sit out doors at night in mid to late fall, not so much of an improvement.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post

                Then why have divisions at all? I understand the idea that it's fairer to have the teams with the best records in the postseason (though if we really want to increase fairness, we would use point differential or baseruns, not W-L record). But if you want to do it that way, you might as well just have two 15 team leagues, with no divisions.

                One rationale for divisions, of course, is regionality, teams can play teams that are based closer to them more often. But that being the case, then one should take into account strength of schedule. A 90-72 team in one division might not really be as good as an 88-74 team in another division. You can avoid all this by just having every team in one league play every other team in that league an equal number of times, or at least as close to equal as the numbers allow.



                https://sports.yahoo.com/report-astr...221700480.html



                https://sports.yahoo.com/report-nati...233937338.html



                makes sense, won't happen because the "elite" franchises and TV want the 18-20 matchups between the marquee rivalries like Yanks/Red Sox, Cards-Cubs, Dodgers/Giants-plus the interleague rivalry games that they can charge a premium price for, using their "dynamic pricing" method. But it would make perfect sense to have 2 -15 team leagues with everyone playing the the same teams 11 teams, going back to a 154 game schedule with the top 4 teams going to post season. You could also incentive it by giving the top two teams an extra home game in the first round, 5 home games possible in a best of 7.

                But the problem with a 15 team league is that someone has to always not be scheduled. Not a big deal during weeknights, but problematic for weekends.
                It Might Be? It Could Be?? It Is!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                  I never thought I would miss Bud Selig...
                  I never thought I'd miss Bowie Kuhn.

                  Happy Chandler, please come through the cornfield and return to the Commissioner's Office. We'll even let you move the office to Lexington, KY.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Disagree with the Purists who don't like Wild Cards or divisions.

                    This is a matter of math. In many years, a team like the Yankees or Astros will find themselves on a path for 100+ wins and if someone starts to run away from the league and is likely to clinch a World Series spot by Labor Day, that will kill all interest in the sport, ceding the entire month of September to football. The 1941 Yanks clinched on Sept 4. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...b-pennant.html The 1941 World Series started Oct. 1. Ted Williams chase for .400 ran through 19 games that meant nothing to anyone but him. Is that the result we want? Is empty stands the result we want? Is more focus on CTE sports what we aspire to?

                    2018 could have been such a season too. If there was only one division, the 108 win BoSox would have effectively ended the regular season around Sept 15. Would the Yanks (100 wins) and the Astros (103 wins) have kept trying to win or would they have thrown in the towel? What about the Indians (91 wins and eventually a division winner)? Probably would have salary dumped Lindor and Bauer to the BoSox on July 10 or so when they had the sixth best record in the AL and would have been 13.5 GB in a single division league. The overpriced Yanks and Astros would have unloaded their assets too. The absence of hope means fire sales and salary dumping at the trade deadline, and going backwards to a bygone era will mean that more clubs will join in that kind of activity, and the kids will not have anyone specific to root for -- just the laundry.

                    I get it that in some years, the existence of divisions allows weak teams to slip into the playoffs. But divisions and wild cards also make for pennant races in a lot of cities and that keeps baseball alive, no matter what Purists think. And IMHO, a team around .500 is not a bad team the way it might have been 50 years ago. .500 is very respectable when it is hard to compete with better financed and better attended teams in low tax cities that free agent players flock to.

                    Now the idea of picking your own opponent is quite intriguing to me. I have a few tweaks, but the notion that teams engage in tanking to get preferable playoff bracketing is horrible. The fix is to take the matching and the bracketing out of their hands. I hope the NBA and the NHL adopt this too.
                    Last edited by rodk; 02-13-2020, 10:20 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post

                      Then why have divisions at all? I understand the idea that it's fairer to have the teams with the best records in the postseason (though if we really want to increase fairness, we would use point differential or baseruns, not W-L record). But if you want to do it that way, you might as well just have two 15 team leagues, with no divisions.

                      One rationale for divisions, of course, is regionality, teams can play teams that are based closer to them more often. But that being the case, then one should take into account strength of schedule. A 90-72 team in one division might not really be as good as an 88-74 team in another division. You can avoid all this by just having every team in one league play every other team in that league an equal number of times, or at least as close to equal as the numbers allow.



                      https://sports.yahoo.com/report-nati...233937338.html


                      Strength of schedule doesn't matter as much in pro sports as it does college sports because college teams play a more limited selection of opponents every year.
                      The playoffs should expand eventually, but only if MLB itself expands.

                      See my blog for more info.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Playoff expansion should have stopped at the single wild card, period. (I know many of you would have liked it to stop at the four-team/LCS format; more power to you.) Adding more teams to the mix is just giving more, almost always inferior teams a chance to win the championship. And with more playoff series, especially shorter ones, those lesser teams have a better chance of "streaking" at the right times and, well, preventing the better ones from more more "rightly" winning.

                        I know none of you are necessarily arguing these points, but I just have the same reaction to every proposed playoff expansion.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post
                          Playoff expansion should have stopped at the single wild card, period. (I know many of you would have liked it to stop at the four-team/LCS format; more power to you.) Adding more teams to the mix is just giving more, almost always inferior teams a chance to win the championship. And with more playoff series, especially shorter ones, those lesser teams have a better chance of "streaking" at the right times and, well, preventing the better ones from more more "rightly" winning.

                          I know none of you are necessarily arguing these points, but I just have the same reaction to every proposed playoff expansion.
                          I agree. I was fine with the one Wild Card, but I've never accepted that second Wild Card. No one wanted these changes except the league bigwigs who want to milk the game for more money.
                          Baseball Junk Drawer

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            FG article argues that the WS odds of the WC teams would be so low that it probably wouldn't be worth spending extra money trying to make the postseason. As I pointed out before, the team with the best record in the league has a big advantage, but using the author's assumptions, their WS odds are not much greater than under the old system. They get a bye, but of course they get a bye under the current system, too. At the same time, the odds of every other team of the current other four are lower, except the no. 4 seed (the first WC under the current system). That's because that seed gets to play a best of three series against a team it's probably favored over, and also because--according to the article--all the games in the best of three first round as proposed are played at the park of the team with the better record, the team that gets to choose its opponent.

                            The bottom line, though, should be obvious: the more teams that go to the postseason, the worse the odds of most teams are of winning the WS. In the proposed system, the bye of the team with the best record in the league gives it a slightly better chance than under the older system, but against that, you have to keep in mind that even a powerhouse team like the Dodgers or the Astros is not guaranteed to finish first in the league. So if you consider the odds from the beginning of the season, they are probably effectively worse for all the teams.

                            https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-new-...e-competition/
                            Last edited by Stolensingle; 02-13-2020, 10:35 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              For those who have been contemplating the diminishing odds of teams winning the World Series in expanded playoff formats ....

                              Forget it. Nobody cares about that. We want exciting games today and every day instead.

                              It is more democratic for someone to come out of the woodwork. It teaches the lesson that buying a team is not enough. It teaches the lesson that the team designed to win during season when there are games everyday is not necessarily the team designed to win a short series that has days off, and thus it might not really be the better team.

                              Just very quickly: in travel ball, a league-playing team is likely to play 3x a week and it chooses that because it really only has 3 pitchers. Compare to a tournament team that may be asked to play 5 or 6 games in a weekend, and will thus need 7 or 8 pitchers to get through those games. It is comparing apples to oranges, and as a realistic matter the same thing is true for the pro season vs the pro playoffs. A division winner may not be a better team on paper in a short series. Let's throw the ball up and see what happens!

                              Meanwhile, pro soccer doesn't have any playoffs. The regular season ends and someone gets a trophy before they leave the field. That's the purist of pure, and the most tedious of all things boring; a championship won against not the next best club but a random opponent. Really?

                              But when there is a playoff, especially in the UK, the fans are insane. The single most valuable prize in all sports is the third place game in English Second Division. You read that right. The most valuable game in the world involves bad teams.

                              In soccer, teams are relegated or promoted from division to division based on results. The three worst clubs in the Premier League are demoted to secondary status and the second tier Champions League. The two best Champions League teams are promoted to the Premier League automatically, and the 3rd through 6th finishers play it off in two tier format, with the playoff final winner getting the promotion. The spoils of victory is a near equal percentage of the much, much larger tv rights package in the Premier League, better audiences, better merch sales, all in all a prize package worth close to $200m, and tens of millions of people have eyes on it every year. Only the World Cup final, played for a much smaller prize, gets the same attention.

                              Is it ridiculous that a third place game in what amounts to a minor league blows away the Super Bowl in terms of importance and popularity? Of course. But it makes for important games no matter who plays in them, and that is always a good thing, IMHO.

                              To me, being a Purist is not about the greatness of old times, when horses and buggies were all the rage. It is about thrilling ballgames played out in front of you now.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rodk View Post
                                For those who have been contemplating the diminishing odds of teams winning the World Series in expanded playoff formats ....

                                Forget it. Nobody cares about that. We want exciting games today and every day instead.

                                It is more democratic for someone to come out of the woodwork. It teaches the lesson that buying a team is not enough. It teaches the lesson that the team designed to win during season when there are games everyday is not necessarily the team designed to win a short series that has days off, and thus it might not really be the better team.

                                Just very quickly: in travel ball, a league-playing team is likely to play 3x a week and it chooses that because it really only has 3 pitchers. Compare to a tournament team that may be asked to play 5 or 6 games in a weekend, and will thus need 7 or 8 pitchers to get through those games. It is comparing apples to oranges, and as a realistic matter the same thing is true for the pro season vs the pro playoffs. A division winner may not be a better team on paper in a short series. Let's throw the ball up and see what happens!

                                Meanwhile, pro soccer doesn't have any playoffs. The regular season ends and someone gets a trophy before they leave the field. That's the purist of pure, and the most tedious of all things boring; a championship won against not the next best club but a random opponent. Really?

                                But when there is a playoff, especially in the UK, the fans are insane. The single most valuable prize in all sports is the third place game in English Second Division. You read that right. The most valuable game in the world involves bad teams.

                                In soccer, teams are relegated or promoted from division to division based on results. The three worst clubs in the Premier League are demoted to secondary status and the second tier Champions League. The two best Champions League teams are promoted to the Premier League automatically, and the 3rd through 6th finishers play it off in two tier format, with the playoff final winner getting the promotion. The spoils of victory is a near equal percentage of the much, much larger tv rights package in the Premier League, better audiences, better merch sales, all in all a prize package worth close to $200m, and tens of millions of people have eyes on it every year. Only the World Cup final, played for a much smaller prize, gets the same attention.

                                Is it ridiculous that a third place game in what amounts to a minor league blows away the Super Bowl in terms of importance and popularity? Of course. But it makes for important games no matter who plays in them, and that is always a good thing, IMHO.

                                To me, being a Purist is not about the greatness of old times, when horses and buggies were all the rage. It is about thrilling ballgames played out in front of you now.
                                Amen. Great post, good points, unique examples.

                                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X