How much weight do you give to the post season?

[oolalaa]

From someone who is relatively new to the sport (I'm from the UK), the baseball post season seems to be a somewhat random luckfest. Who ever gets hot at the right time wins. Isn't it basically just a gimmicky tournament? How much respect do you give to the world series winner? Wouldn't it be better if MLB expanded the post season to four 7 game series like the NBA and NHL currently have? Maybe even extend the individual series length? How about a best of 9 instead of 7? Wouldn't more games mean less luck and randomness? Wouldn't the best team rise to the top more often? Wouldn't the fans prefer more games? Wouldn't MLB make more money?

Basically, make the playoffs a viable and relatively accurate baromiter for determining who the best team in the league is (Like in the NBA, NHL and to a certain extent the NFL. I actualy think the regular season should be reduced in length to give the post season - my expanded version of the post season - presedence, but maybe that's for another debate).

Just looking for some thoughts....

[9RoyHobbsRF]

^ as compared to say football where a team that was 7-7 at one point (finished 9-7) and was OUTSCORED for the year won the Super Bowl?

or basketball (5 man teams) or hockey (6 man teams) where one superstar can carry a team a long way?

in baseball the best hitter only bats once every 9 batters

in baseball even in a short series, one pitcher can not win all the games necessary to advance (except the 1 game plyoff)

in basketball one guy can shoot the ball 50 consecutive possessions should he choose to

in hockey one player can make all the difference in the world

in football you can run the ball or pass the ball with the same personnel play after play after play

[oolalaa]

^ as compared to say football where a team that was 7-7 at one point (finished 9-7) and was OUTSCORED for the year won the Super Bowl?

or basketball (5 man teams) or hockey (6 man teams) where one superstar can carry a team a long way?

in baseball the best hitter only bats once every 9 batters

in baseball even in a short series, one pitcher can not win all the games necessary to advance (except the 1 game plyoff)

in basketball one guy can shoot the ball 50 consecutive possessions should he choose to

in hockey one player can make all the difference in the world

in football you can run the ball or pass the ball with the same personnel play after play after play

Thanks for the neatly organised thoughts, but to all of them I say....so?

Would baseball not be better off if the post season was expanded? (Not in the way MLB has done this year by adding that pathetic one game wild card. Selig's a clown). More games equals less randomness. Surely luck should be minimized and skill should take precedence?

[KHenry14]

Thanks for the neatly organised thoughts, but to all of them I say....so?

Would baseball not be better off if the post season was expanded? (Not in the way MLB has done this year by adding that pathetic one game wild card. Selig's a clown). More games equals less randomness. Surely luck should be minimized and skill should take precedence?

One issue in expanding the playoffs is the weather. It already goes into November, explanding it could make the WS end around the end of November, and if bad weather moves in, we may never get a winner.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Thanks for the neatly organised thoughts, but to all of them I say....so?

Would baseball not be better off if the post season was expanded? (Not in the way MLB has done this year by adding that pathetic one game wild card. Selig's a clown). More games equals less randomness. Surely luck should be minimized and skill should take precedence?

I would say having to win 11-12 games and play as many as 19-20 games is pretty expanded

you can fluke a win in a winner take all football game

it is hard to do in a 7 game series

[brett]

The expanded playoffs have hurt baseball in terms of the general public following, in my opinion, because its hard to get most Americans to tune in for game 1 of a series for whom the winner gets to play for the league championship. By the time the first round is over, 90% of America has lost track and tuned out. I think that many more Americans would watch the LCS if the regular season lead right into it rather than having to go through a wild card round for whom the winner has still not really won anything.

There may be an issue with too many teams being out of the race early. I once thought about the possibility of weighting games more in the second half, or that at SOME point, maybe the last 24-32 games would count double. I didn't really like it, I was just trying to be creative. The other possibility I have heard is to schedule the second half based on first half records somehow. Don't really like that either.

I would not have a problem with a somewhat shorter regular season. There was talk of a 144 game season after it was used in 1995.

Another problem is that series can get offset by several days. I think we were almost a week off a couple years ago.

The problem with expanded playoffs anyway is that 7 games is short enough to get upsets. If you really wanted to get the best team, you would do better to lengthen the LCS and WS or have an expanded type tournament among the top 4 teams.

[dgarza]

Basically, make the playoffs a viable and relatively accurate baromiter for determining who the best team in the league is

If you want a viable and accurate measure of who the best team is, then just eliminate the post-season all together. Because the regular season already does that.

Does the post-season involve some luck and randomness factors? Yes, but so what? That's what keeps it interesting. That's what helps keep fans involved and invested in their teams.

If you want to keep the underdogs from achieving, then you might as well drop the whole notion of the post-season, because not enough people are going to show up.

[willshad]

If you want a viable and accurate measure of who the best team is, then just eliminate the post-season all together. Because the regular season already does that.

Does the post-season involve some luck and randomness factors? Yes, but so what? That's what keeps it interesting. That's what helps keep fans involved and invested in their teams.

If you want to keep the underdogs from achieving, then you might as well drop the whole notion of the post-season, because not enough people are going to show up.

I agree..the regular season is a better measure of the best team, because it is a much greater sample size, against more varied competition. The 'best' team seldom wins the world series..the playoffs are more of a money making thing than they are there to actually 'prove' what team is best.

Baseball is a unique sport, in that it requires a LARGE sample size in order to get a real grasp of superiority. A guy like Pujols can suck for 40 games, and still have a good season..in football he wouldn't be allowed to do that, and probably in basketball as well. Likewise, an inferior team can beat a much better team 6 or 7 times in a row..but it really doesn't prove anything.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I understand your idea, but the truth is the best team does not always win, even in the two-league, no division setup.

To get what you want, there has to be a significant shortage of size to the regular season so as to keep baseball out of late October, where it's too cold to play. I don't care for whining about that, but it is true that baseball players play worse in cold weather.

And according to some, most Americans have the attention spans of gnats and can't follow baseball well anymore, and MLB is pushing the limits of their patience with 20-game max postseasons. Thus, they would get burned out with marathon-style post-seasons.

[NJYankeeFan]

Baseball is the least random because there is a meaningful regular season and limited number of playoff teams. Unlike the other sports.

Hockey and basketball everyone goes to the playoffs.

Football is just random. 16 games is nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[dominik]

From someone who is relatively new to the sport (I'm from the UK), the baseball post season seems to be a somewhat random luckfest. Who ever gets hot at the right time wins. Isn't it basically just a gimmicky tournament? How much respect do you give to the world series winner? Wouldn't it be better if MLB expanded the post season to four 7 game series like the NBA and NHL currently have? Maybe even extend the individual series length? How about a best of 9 instead of 7? Wouldn't more games mean less luck and randomness? Wouldn't the best team rise to the top more often? Wouldn't the fans prefer more games? Wouldn't MLB make more money?

Basically, make the playoffs a viable and relatively accurate baromiter for determining who the best team in the league is (Like in the NBA, NHL and to a certain extent the NFL. I actualy think the regular season should be reduced in length to give the post season - my expanded version of the post season - presedence, but maybe that's for another debate).

Just looking for some thoughts....

If you are from GB:

How much weight do you give the football (for the americans: football means soccer in england) world cup or champions league? Isn't that also a luckfest (especially if you win the a penalty shootout like chelsea did last season)?

A longer PS would reduce the luck however the season is already very long. any more games and they would need to cut the RS season which of course especially the non contending team don't want (a shift toward the PS would mean more tv money for the PO teams and less for the non PO teams.

[dominik]

Baseball is the least random because there is a meaningful regular season and limited number of playoff teams. Unlike the other sports.

Hockey and basketball everyone goes to the playoffs.

Football is just random. 16 games is nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

yes but the variance in baseball is bigger. even the worst team will win a few short series against the best teams over a long season. this is because very few events can decide a baseball game (does the ball fall or get caught with bases loaded and 2 outs). in an individual game american football usually does have a little less luck factor.

in baseball the best teams are about +0.7 runs per game and the worst are like -0.7. that means often the outcome of one batted ball (which is considered luck by the xFIP proponents) can decide the game.

[oolalaa]

I would not have a problem with a somewhat shorter regular season. There was talk of a 144 game season after it was used in 1995.

Another problem is that series can get offset by several days. I think we were almost a week off a couple years ago.

Well, I do actually think the regular season should be shortened (As I mentioned in the op) so that they play 4 games a week instead of the roughly 6 games a week they play now. That way, you still keep the everyday feel that makes baseball unique, but each individual game carries more weight. Although, as you and KHenry14 has mentioned, the weather would certainly become an issue.

The problem with expanded playoffs anyway is that 7 games is short enough to get upsets. If you really wanted to get the best team, you would do better to lengthen the LCS and WS or have an expanded type tournament among the top 4 teams.

Which is why I mentioned 9 game series instead of 7 game series.

[oolalaa]

If you want a viable and accurate measure of who the best team is, then just eliminate the post-season all together. Because the regular season already does that.

Does the post-season involve some luck and randomness factors? Yes, but so what? That's what keeps it interesting. That's what helps keep fans involved and invested in their teams.

If you want to keep the underdogs from achieving, then you might as well drop the whole notion of the post-season, because not enough people are going to show up.

I'm certainly not against that idea! I essentially think the post season, as it is right now, is a pointless gimmick. Either allow the playoffs to take precedence over the regular season (Or at least, more realistically, make them relatively equal) or scrap the playoffs entirely.

[oolalaa]

I agree..the regular season is a better measure of the best team, because it is a much greater sample size, against more varied competition. The 'best' team seldom wins the world series..the playoffs are more of a money making thing than they are there to actually 'prove' what team is best.

Baseball is a unique sport, in that it requires a LARGE sample size in order to get a real grasp of superiority. A guy like Pujols can suck for 40 games, and still have a good season..in football he wouldn't be allowed to do that, and probably in basketball as well. Likewise, an inferior team can beat a much better team 6 or 7 times in a row..but it really doesn't prove anything.

I agree that the everdayness of baseball is unique and part of it's charm. But you can still get that same everyday feel by reducing the regular season to, say, roughly 120 games instead of 162. The cream should still rise to the top over that number of games, too.