Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLB considering changes to postseason

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by rodk View Post

    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.
    Yes, in a world where most people aren't creative enough to entertain themselves, where people have very short attention spans and can't appreciate the concept of a body of work, where all that matters is today's news, mostly divorced from the context of history, short playoff series are all the rage.

    The supreme irony being that almost no one lives in the moment. Most people live for the anticipated next moment.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post

      Yes, in a world where most people aren't creative enough to entertain themselves, where people have very short attention spans and can't appreciate the concept of a body of work, where all that matters is today's news, mostly divorced from the context of history, short playoff series are all the rage.

      The supreme irony being that almost no one lives in the moment. Most people live for the anticipated next moment.
      Sounds like people that follow sabermetrics.
      "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


      • #33
        For Purists not liking the wild card, lets visit the English Premier League.

        The league is a runaway. Liverpool has a record of 26-1-1 for 79 points, and Man City is 18-6-3 for 57 points, and with its remaining 11 games, can max out at 90, meaning Liverpool has a magic number of 12 points, meaning it needs to pick up or Man City needs to miss out on 12 for Liverpool to clinch, and Liverpool has many weak sisters remaining, though it also has midweek tournaments to play that may lead to almost meaningless league games being essentially trap games or reserves games. But the teams have played 28 and 27 games out of 38 respectively, which in baseball terms means mid-August, pragmatically meaning league crown fight is all over but for the shouting.

        Where some of the real excitement is in the middle of the standings. In the EPL, the top four finishers automatically qualify for next year's (don't get me started) Champions League, and finisher number 5 qualifies for next year's EUFA League. For the uninitiated, these events are more or less comparable to our overlapping March Madness and NIT tournaments, with the former for good teams and the latter for also rans. But both generate a lot of money for teams so they can improve.

        In the Premier League, about 7 teams remain in range to claim either the fourth Champions League spot or the EUFA spot, and 8 teams are a two game winning streak from having the EUFA spot.

        But the real action is at the bottom of the standings to see which three teams get relegated out of the Premier League. Norwich City seems to have a firm grip on last place overall, but 7 teams are in mortal danger of losing the EPL annual payout of $200m per team when they get cast out. True, anyone demoted gets a $125m going away present, but if you stay, it is $200m and then $125 if you are demoted next year. That is money that changes teams from bad to passable.

        If you then check the standings, even though the trophy is basically decided, 19 of the 20 teams are still playing for something -- not including the non-league competitions proceeding on an overlapping schedule -- and their fans are as content as pigs in slop even though only 9 teams are over .500.

        Now I know you Purists will hate this, but perhaps instead of Wild Cards per se, we introduced the college system of at-large bids and playoff pairings chosen by a committee from among the non-division winners. That process does not seem to devalue March Madness or the College Football Playoff. But should you Purists hate it? Having at large entries in the playoffs means everyone is still in the running right down to game 162. You already think the wild cards are only there by grace of God; a selection process could cure the problem of accounting for strength of schedule and the rigidity of playoff bracketing that could lead to tanking. Maybe it is purer than what we have now.

        Comment


        • #34
          At the risk of sounding redundant, I must repeat here what I have stated in a different thread. FWTW, this statement is repeated for different reasons than the other thread. MLB is killing the goose which lays the golden egg when toying with the current postseason setup.

          As we have it today, MLB is all about the regular season. That has been the case despite changes to date on the postseason. For all the hand wringing about past postseason changes as Wild Cards 1 and 2 were added, the focus is still on the regular season today, IMHO. There is a limit to how much tinkering can go on, however. The golden egg is all about the regular season because 1) season ticket sales, 2) ticket sales during the season, including walkups, 3) game revenue throughout the season from parking and concessions, 4) memorabilia and jersey sales, 5) and most importantly, the revenue from broadcast ads and from subscriptions for pay-for-TV. For that matter, radio broadcasts probably add a little something to their cash registers as 162 games add up.

          The regular season is still king, and it must be treated that way. Yet, when these proposals are considered, it smacks of the NCAA's preference for March Madness. In the back of my mind, I have to believe the owners and their ilk know better, but they don't act like it. Baseball needs to market the regular season, promote baseball to kids out of school, ensure that broadcasts are widely available to the public (and not blacked out! See the other thread.), and do whatever they can think of to place baseball back in the public's consciousness from May through August. (!!!!!)

          Look, I get it. Football has kidnapped American's sports mindsets and held it for ransom. That kidnapping cannot be fought with battles over ratings during the Fall. IMHO, baseball would not be in such dire need for ratings boosts if the focus on the regular season were properly in mind. When I say "properly in mind", I mean recognizing the golden egg that is the regular season. Allow broadcasts in a widely accessible fashion, and leave the postseason ratings to take care of itself. This is how baseball became popular.

          In other words, to those fans who state that they don't care about the regular season anyway..... really ???!!! And when did that start? 2015? 2005? 1995? 1985? 1975? On those choices, the farther back you go, the more the regular season mattered at that point. The more recent your preference, then you haven't known a time when the regular season mattered and baseball needs to re-introduce the idea for you.
          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


          • #35
            Excellent point, abolishthedh!

            The best improvement MLB could make to the playoffs would be a move to four divisions per league with only division winners reaching the postseason. Facilitating meaningful pennant races, not "dumbing them down" should be the goal here.
            "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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
              Excellent point, abolishthedh!

              The best improvement MLB could make to the playoffs would be a move to four divisions per league with only division winners reaching the postseason. Facilitating meaningful pennant races, not "dumbing them down" should be the goal here.
              This would facilitate expansion as well, unless the league would be on board with having two three-team divisions (doubtful).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post

                This would facilitate expansion as well, unless the league would be on board with having two three-team divisions (doubtful).
                Absolutely.

                Expanding the number of teams in MLB is far more in the game's best interests than expanding the number of teams in the playoffs.

                I would argue that expansion to 36 teams (six-team divisions) would be preferable to 32 teams (four-team or eight-team divisions). I think the 1969-1976 MLB, 1977-1993 NL model of 6 teams per division is the ideal balance.
                "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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                  Absolutely.

                  Expanding the number of teams in MLB is far more in the game's best interests than expanding the number of teams in the playoffs.

                  I would argue that expansion to 36 teams (six-team divisions) would be preferable to 32 teams (four-team or eight-team divisions). I think the 1969-1976 MLB, 1977-1993 NL model of 6 teams per division is the ideal balance.
                  I'd be on board with that. I like five teams per six divisions, but obviously no franchise is getting axed at this point, and expanding to 40 teams is too much.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post

                    I'd be on board with that. I like five teams per six divisions, but obviously no franchise is getting axed at this point, and expanding to 40 teams is too much.
                    Also, consider that an increase from 30 to 36 is an increase of 20%. In 1969, MLB went from 20 to 24 teams, also an increase of 20%. It went just fine then, it would go well now. (And no, I am not advocating that all 6 expansion teams must start in the same year, but it could be done 3 for the AL one year and 3 for the NL a few years later.

                    Also, consider the regular season schedule possibilities:

                    Division titles would be more meaningful with a schedule were 90 of 162 games (56%) are played against your divisional opponents. Furthermore, facing each divisional opponent 18 times facilitates greater familiarity for fans with opposing teams' players, increases potential for rivalries, and reduces travel times (and therefore player fatigue) and away games played outside your time zone. Eighteen games is easily broken down into 9 home, 9 away, three three-game series each. Easy to schedule. Eliminating interleague play would then allow us to play the remaining 72 games against teams in the other divisions within our league, 6 games (3 home, 3 away) versus each.

                    Even before the expansion teams are added, if you nix interleague play, then you're still looking at 18 games versus each same-division opponent and 9 games (not 6) against every other team in your league (who are outside your division).

                    At the point that we have a 36-team MLB, then we can look at expanding the playoffs, perhaps.

                    "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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                      Also, consider that an increase from 30 to 36 is an increase of 20%. In 1969, MLB went from 20 to 24 teams, also an increase of 20%. It went just fine then, it would go well now. (And no, I am not advocating that all 6 expansion teams must start in the same year, but it could be done 3 for the AL one year and 3 for the NL a few years later.

                      Also, consider the regular season schedule possibilities:

                      Division titles would be more meaningful with a schedule were 90 of 162 games (56%) are played against your divisional opponents. Furthermore, facing each divisional opponent 18 times facilitates greater familiarity for fans with opposing teams' players, increases potential for rivalries, and reduces travel times (and therefore player fatigue) and away games played outside your time zone. Eighteen games is easily broken down into 9 home, 9 away, three three-game series each. Easy to schedule. Eliminating interleague play would then allow us to play the remaining 72 games against teams in the other divisions within our league, 6 games (3 home, 3 away) versus each.

                      Even before the expansion teams are added, if you nix interleague play, then you're still looking at 18 games versus each same-division opponent and 9 games (not 6) against every other team in your league (who are outside your division).

                      At the point that we have a 36-team MLB, then we can look at expanding the playoffs, perhaps.
                      You realize this is the craziest thing you've done since you conceded to the guys on the Mills Commission. I guess a couple indiscretions every 115 years isn't bad.

                      "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


                      • #41
                        It's been 22 years and counting since MLB's last expansion. That's the longest span ever between expansions, by nearly 50% and growing with every year that passes. If MLB decided to expand, the new franchise(s) wouldn't take the field at the Major League level for at least four to five years after MLB announced its intentions. By that point, we're talking about virtually twice as long as the 1978-1992 period between the 1977 and 1993 expansions.

                        Since the 1990s, the general population of this country has grown by 30 percent. When the last expansion occurred, only about 10% of Major League players were foreign-born, meaning that 90% of MLB players were drawn from the U.S. population. Today, the percentage of MLB jobs filled by native-born players is nearly 70%, with foreign-born players representing nearly a third of all Major Leaguers.

                        Not only has the pre-existing talent pool grown substantially over the past two decades, but other talent pipelines flowing into that talent pool have made that increase exponential. In short, there are far more MLB-caliber ballplayers out there who are currently without an MLB job than there have been available at any prior time since the sport first expanded.

                        Moreover, demographic shifts over the past several decades have increased the number of metropolitan areas with 2 million or more people by 70 percent. In 1990, there were 21 MLB teams in 18 of the 20 most populated metropoles in the United States. The only MLB teams outside those markets were Cincinnati (23rd), Milwaukee (24th) and Kansas City (25th). The top four open markets were filled with the 1993 (Miami, Denver) and 1998 (Phoenix, Tampa) expansions.

                        Today, the 29 American-based teams are scattered among the 39 most populous metropolises with growing markets like Orlando, Charlotte, San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas and Nashville similar or larger than the markets of the smallest MLB teams. Population isn't the only consideration for placing a MLB team somewhere, but it's the best starting point. If your city's metropolitan area includes just 50,000 people, an MLB team won't flourish there. An area of 2 million people is a pretty good foundation for success.

                        Expansion would be a positive good for MLB. It could expand to regions where baseball fans exist but have not had a major league team, further increasing the fan base of the sport. If expansion locations were selected judiciously, MLB could use expansion in conjunction with some form of radical realignment to drastically cut down on long-distance travel by aligning teams along geographic lines more efficiently.

                        The "expansion drops the quality of play" argument is weaker than it's ever been in the past and the arguments typically presented to lower the number of teams is an argument about the bad management of individual teams, not against any certain number of teams.

                        The NFL has 32 teams, the NHL has 31 and the NBA has 30. You think those leagues aren't going to be adding expansion teams in the future? There's no good argument for MLB to stay pat. The economy can handle it. The expansion locations can handle it. The talent pool can handle it.

                        I'm merely suggesting that MLB lead the way here, rather than follow suit, that MLB think long-term, not short-term in adding teams. Thirty-six teams may or may not be "crazy", but it would certainly be EPIC.
                        "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


                        • #42
                          Six more teams to swallow up six more Trout's. In my opinion 24 teams is ideally the most baseball would have. No less than 20. The teams north and east of St. Louis are the most important teams. Everything else is an oasis in a desert in my opinion...

                          St. Louis, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Chicago (2), Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Toronto, New York (2), Boston

                          Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Colorado, Texas, Houston filling the rest of the country.

                          If I had to remove four to make twenty then Seattle, Colorado, a Texas team and Toronto (I know they're north and east of St. Louis).

                          Tampa - why is this team allowed to take talent and accomplishments from real teams? Literally no one wants this team to win. Seriously name anyone.
                          Miami - just why?
                          San Diego - unneccessary
                          Kansas City - fans will run to the Cardinals like someone who realizes their true love has been right there the whole time.
                          Arizona - is a perfect state for spring training
                          Anaheim - is Lindsay Lohan to the Dodgers Anna Kendrick



                          "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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
                            Six more teams to swallow up six more Trout's. In my opinion 24 teams is ideally the most baseball would have. No less than 20. The teams north and east of St. Louis are the most important teams. Everything else is an oasis in a desert in my opinion...

                            St. Louis, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Chicago (2), Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Toronto, New York (2), Boston

                            Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Colorado, Texas, Houston filling the rest of the country.

                            If I had to remove four to make twenty then Seattle, Colorado, a Texas team and Toronto (I know they're north and east of St. Louis).

                            Tampa - why is this team allowed to take talent and accomplishments from real teams? Literally no one wants this team to win. Seriously name anyone.
                            Miami - just why?
                            San Diego - unneccessary
                            Kansas City - fans will run to the Cardinals like someone who realizes their true love has been right there the whole time.
                            Arizona - is a perfect state for spring training
                            Anaheim - is Lindsay Lohan to the Dodgers Anna Kendrick
                            Every big 4 league has either 30 or 32 teams (including the NHL's upcoming Seattle expansion). Those numbers are just, well, perfect for a balance of alignment. 36 would be the next step up, but something feels "off" about having that many teams when so many bottom-feeders in one or more ways exist right now.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post

                              Every big 4 league has either 30 or 32 teams (including the NHL's upcoming Seattle expansion). Those numbers are just, well, perfect for a balance of alignment. 36 would be the next step up, but something feels "off" about having that many teams when so many bottom-feeders in one or more ways exist right now.
                              Yea, I realize there is almost no way of contraction and it would look bad for the sport. Just saying I think that is the ideal number for the sport due to % of teams making the playoffs, % quality of fan bases served and more visibility for star players ala Trout being with the Angels and Machado in San Diego. The Mariners seem to have good fans even if the team isn't usually the best.

                              For instance there is basically no positive short or long term result for the sport when teams like the Rays, Marlins and a couple other clubs knock the classic teams with strong fan bases out of the playoffs. No one cares about those teams now and now one is going to in 50 years. No reason anyone should have to watch the Rays in October instead of Boston, New York or Baltimore.
                              Last edited by bluesky5; 03-15-2020, 01:38 PM.
                              "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


                              • #45
                                I'm also considering changes to the post-season. I'm considering not watching it if they add any more teams.
                                They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X