218 replies to this topic

[knucklecup]

http://bleacherrepor...league-baseball

[zenter]

This feels very familiar.

[BucketOBalls]

Better link

Sounds a bit more definite than in the past.

[Saby]

Great, so now the regular season will mean absolute jack.

[bosockboy]

This would seem to have some effect on roster construction. For example, does a a heavyweight like the Sox or Yankees need to have a great back end of the rotation if they know they have a playoff spot?

You can build rosters for October.

[Saby]

It would be a death knell for the regular season and its relevance. Especially for teams like the Yankees or Red Sox, who go into each season knowing their first 162 games are just a formality. Having to play an extra series is not a big enough deterrent for taking the regular season off.

[Curtis Pride]

Actually it would still retain the meaningful races in September, but also make winning the division more important. Under the current system, a wild-card team could settle for the wild-card slot and just set their rotations knowing that their shot is essentially equal to everyone else. By adding another wild-card team to play in a very short series, winning the division would be more important, simply by avoiding that extra round.

Now if they were to expand the playoffs to sixteen teams, and shorten the season to 148 games (to accommodate an extra 7-game series), then the importance of the regular season would be diminished.

Edited by Curtis Pride, 21 April 2011 - 07:53 PM.

[Gdiguy]

It would be a death knell for the regular season and its relevance. Especially for teams like the Yankees or Red Sox, who go into each season knowing their first 162 games are just a formality. Having to play an extra series is not a big enough deterrent for taking the regular season off.

Are you sure? It depends what percent of the time you believe the better team wins a 7 game series; if you think the better team always wins, then who cares about an extra WC series, you can win that easily... but if you believe (like I do) that the winner of a 7 game series is at BEST a 70-30 crapshoot (unless the teams are wildly different in terms of pure talent level), then having a 70% vs 100% chance of making it out of the first round is a fairly significant benefit for winning the division

[Saby]

The proposed WC series is not likely to be 7 games, most of the discussion has it on being either a 1-game winner-take-all series or a 3 game series. I guess, the question is, would teams fight for the division by going all out in order to prevent them from having to play the extra series or will they settle for being able to win the short series and rest their players? If it's the latter, it will be a crippling blow to the regular season.

The main thing is to make it as much of a disadvantage as possible for the WC teams. Either make it a one game series so anything can happen ( and so teams will try to avoid that out of fear for a bad game derailing their season) or have it a short series, after which the divisional series is played as quickly as possible so teams have to use their third or fourth starters.

[The Mainahh]

It would be a death knell for the regular season and its relevance. Especially for teams like the Yankees or Red Sox, who go into each season knowing their first 162 games are just a formality. Having to play an extra series is not a big enough deterrent for taking the regular season off.

I think your being a bit hyperbolic here. Every major American sport (NFL, NBA, NHL) has more teams make the playoffs and things seem to be going just fine. I like this idea.

[Saby]

I think your being a bit hyperbolic here. Every major American sport (NFL, NBA, NHL) has more teams make the playoffs and things seem to be going just fine. I like this idea.

You can't make a simple comparison to the other major sports. The NFL has 16 games, 146 less than the MLB regular season. Teams can't be assured of a berth till the last few games and, even then, due to the one-and-done format, the home field advantage is often played for right till the end.

In the NBA, you have teams tanking to get better lottery picks, and teams taking the last bits of the season off. The Spurs, for example, during their 3 championships, treated the regular season like a training run. Now, that's not as big an issue as baseball because again, there are "only" 82 games compared to almost double that for baseball.

If the changes are not implemented properly, it really will markedly decrease the significance of the regular season for teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, who are guaranteed playoff berths before beginning the season. I agree that it will engage fans of some border-line teams who are on the cusp of the playoffs every year, but at a cost.

[BucketOBalls]

This would seem to have some effect on roster construction. For example, does a a heavyweight like the Sox or Yankees need to have a great back end of the rotation if they know they have a playoff spot?

You can build rosters for October.

Your talking about teams skimping on the back of the rotation in order to have a better top 1-3.
I don't think it really affects rooster construction as I don't think there normally would be the players free that allow a team to opt for a better top of the rotation guy at the expense of the back of the rotation. In understand what your saying, but, in most cases, I don't think teams would have the opportunity to make a tradeoff like that. Also, back end pitchers(at least those hired as such) don't make that much anyway, so a team could go from a retread vet making a few million to a league min guy, but your not really saving all that much, so most bigger market teams will just go with the better guy anyway. Esp for a team like the Yankee's.

I think it does really shift toward the "regular season is meaningless" though. One of the nice things about baseball is that races actually mean something. Since you only get races for the last spots, in the NBA, NFL and NHL you only get races between teams that everyone knows arn't going to win it all anyway. Expanding the playoffs gets away from that.

The details matter here anyway. I'm not sure how you do 5 teams per league, unless your going to some WBC like pool system.

[dynomite]

It would be a death knell for the regular season and its relevance. Especially for teams like the Yankees or Red Sox, who go into each season knowing their first 162 games are just a formality. Having to play an extra series is not a big enough deterrent for taking the regular season off.

I strongly disagree for any number of reasons, which have been dealt with in depth in other threads.

Basically, the fundamental problem of your reasoning is that September will be exciting again, and winning your Division will be an actual reward again.

Instead of most of the league being eliminated by September 1, now the Division leaders will still have to play hard to win their Division and many teams will still be in Wild Card contention. For the first 100 years of baseball, winning your division entitled you to something special. In the last 15 years, winning a Wild Card was just as good as winning your division. No difference beyond homefield advantage.

In addition, baseball will still have the lowest percentage of teams making the playoffs of any major sport.

Here's what I wrote in one of the prior threads:

- As for the playoff expansion, this is my hope (and the rumor I read from someone like Neyer): two Wild Card teams, have them play a 1-game playoff the day after (or perhaps two days after) the season ends. Home field determined by wins (with traditional tiebreakers). This change to the playoff format makes all kinds of sense.

1. It rewards teams for winning their divisions (which better gibes with MLB history and the concept of a Pennant). Making divisions matter again makes all kinds of sense. Instead of the Rays and Yankees snoozing their way through the last 2 weeks, that would have been a battle to the finish. And instead of the Blue Jays, White Sox and Red Sox being eliminated in early September, that entire month would have been epic as those three teams tried to make the playoffs.

2. It punishes teams for not winning their divisions, incentivizing against the Wild Card. Feels wrong to me that the Yankees were resting their starters this year, or that there is any such resting from Wild Card teams. If you're the Wild Card team you should have to play hard to the finish, and if you're neck-and-neck with another team for the Division it shouldn't be meaningless.

3. At least two one-game playoffs! Every year!

As for the criticisms:



No, it doesn't mean there's "no need" to construct a team that can win 95-100 games, unless playing a 1-game playoff instead of resting your players is irrelevant to you. And 90 wins certainly wouldn't "guarantee" making the real playoffs, only make it likely that you'll have a shot at it. In the AL the one-game playoff would have been between the 95 win Yankees and 89 win Red Sox in Yankee Stadium. In all likelihood the 95 win Yankees are still making the playoffs.




The system I'm advocating punishes those "mediocre" teams for not winning their division. To me it's more annoying that "mediocre" teams can go through the year, not win their division and yet rest their players and prepare for the postseason as if they did.



But in this system it still would have -- the Giants and Padres would still have been desperate to win their division and not have to play the Braves in a one-game series. And I don't think there's anything ridiculous about the 90 win Padres playing the 91 win Braves to make the playoffs.

If anything, this system punishes those ~90 win teams more than the current one.

No way. Take this year's American League for example (as Ras and I already illustrated). And let's pick a date of say, September 20th. (The last 2 weeks of the season)

In the current system:
AL West: The Rangers were up 8 games. (i.e. 0 teams in the AL West were playing meaningful games)
AL Central: The Twins were up 11 games. (i.e. 0 teams in the AL Central were playing meaningful games)
AL East: The Yankees and Rays were beginning a 4-game series which, despite the Yankees only being up 1.5 games over the Rays, was sort of irrelevant because the Red Sox were 8 games behind the Yankees and 6.5 games behind the Rays. (2 teams playing semi-meaningful games)

Under a new system:
AL West: Rangers the same.
AL Central: Twins the same.
AL East: Yankees and Rays beginning a hugely important 4-game series, as neither wants to play a Wild Card playoff.
1st Wild Card: Loser of the Rays/Yankees.
2nd Wild Card: The Red Sox have a 4 game lead over the White Sox, with a huge series in Chicago coming up the following weekend.

Edit:

I also think that "One Game Playoff Day!!!!" would be a ratings bonanza for the league and the PERFECT way to recapture a baseball audience heading into the playoffs. This year a 30-3 blowout Titans-Jaguars Monday Night Football game drew better ratings than the Yankees-Rangers ALCS (with Cliff Lee pitching). The baseball playoffs start as softly as a sunrise in a Downy factory at the moment. ONE GAME PLAYOFF DAY (with an early game at 5:05 EST and a late game at 8:35 EST) would be so much fun -- people would go to bars to watch, people would have parties... it would be a baseball day unlike anything but Opening Day, the perfect capstone to the regular season.

Edited by dynomite, 21 April 2011 - 10:19 PM.

[dwainw]

I look at last season as a very interesting case both for and against this format, at least from a Red Sox fan perspective. It was an incredibly painful season to sit through--pun intended. Yet they scratched and clawed their way to relevance into September. On the one hand, it would have been one hell of an accomplishment just to make the playoffs, and I would have been thrilled to see what they could do. On the other hand, they were simply not a playoff-caliber team. On that basis I'd have to say I'd reluctantly oppose playoff expansion. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I lived in one of about twenty other MLB cities, however.

[Hendu for Kutch]

I also think that "One Game Playoff Day!!!!" would be a ratings bonanza for the league and the PERFECT way to recapture a baseball audience heading into the playoffs. This year a 30-3 blowout Titans-Jaguars Monday Night Football game drew better ratings than the Yankees-Rangers ALCS (with Cliff Lee pitching). The baseball playoffs start as softly as a sunrise in a Downy factory at the moment. ONE GAME PLAYOFF DAY (with an early game at 5:05 EST and a late game at 8:35 EST) would be so much fun -- people would go to bars to watch, people would have parties... it would be a baseball day unlike anything but Opening Day, the perfect capstone to the regular season.[/size][/font]

I understand a one-game playoff would be very exciting. Absolutely. But is that a good reason to do it? Baseball isn't a sport that lends itself to a one-game winner take all scenario. As a tiebreaker, sure. But in that case, whether it's a Game 7 or Game 163, it's between two teams who have been given a longer stretch and played each other even. But a potential 1-game playoff between a 98 win team and an 88 win team would be grossly unfair. Especially in the case where the 1st wild card has a better record than two of the division winners.

I think the wild card fixed a problem that came about due to divisional play, namely that the best teams are sometimes in the same division. Adding this new round just recreates the problem. If you were to take the 2 lowest qualifying playoff teams, I guess that would make it more fair and also keep playoff races more exciting across the board. I'd guess MLB will never go for that though.

[Rasputin]

It would be a death knell for the regular season and its relevance. Especially for teams like the Yankees or Red Sox, who go into each season knowing their first 162 games are just a formality. Having to play an extra series is not a big enough deterrent for taking the regular season off.

This is reactionary twaddle. An added round of playoffs would make the regular season MORE important.

Let me illustrate this way. With eight teams in, if the winners were randomly selected, each team would have a 12.5% chance of winning the world series. Adding a wild card would make that four teams with 12.5% and four teams with 6.25%. All those times in the last several years where teams coasted the last week of the season because the division wasn't a big enough incentive...well doubling your chances of the big prize is a pretty big incentive.

And of course, it isn't random. You will have the higher seed virtually guaranteed a chance to start their series with their best pitcher against a lower seed who is virtually guaranteed to be starting the series with someone other than their best pitcher.

If you want the best teams winning the world series more often, this is an excellent thing.

If they do it right--which means minimizing the off days--then there need not be much if any extension of the calendar.

[Rasputin]

I understand a one-game playoff would be very exciting. Absolutely. But is that a good reason to do it? Baseball isn't a sport that lends itself to a one-game winner take all scenario. As a tiebreaker, sure. But in that case, whether it's a Game 7 or Game 163, it's between two teams who have been given a longer stretch and played each other even. But a potential 1-game playoff between a 98 win team and an 88 win team would be grossly unfair. Especially in the case where the 1st wild card has a better record than two of the division winners.

I think the wild card fixed a problem that came about due to divisional play, namely that the best teams are sometimes in the same division. Adding this new round just recreates the problem. If you were to take the 2 lowest qualifying playoff teams, I guess that would make it more fair and also keep playoff races more exciting across the board. I'd guess MLB will never go for that though.

I don't disagree with your overall point and I think I prefer a three game series but yes, excitement is a good reason to do it.

[Rasputin]

You can't make a simple comparison to the other major sports.

Of course you can. It's the other major sports that baseball is competing against for fans and fan spending.

If the changes are not implemented properly, it really will markedly decrease the significance of the regular season for teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, who are guaranteed playoff berths before beginning the season. I agree that it will engage fans of some border-line teams who are on the cusp of the playoffs every year, but at a cost.

Even if you were right, which you aren't, engaging the fans of three to five teams at the expense of one or two is a tradeoff you make every day of the week while you masturbate at the thought that you might be able to do it again the next day.

[Saby]

Rasputin, I agree that this will be a very good move for MLB in terms of the financial aspect of it. "ONE GAME PLAYOFFS" and the like will certainly generate revenue and buzz.

A less economically inclined issue is: Will adding another team in each league as the WC diminish the importance of wins in the regular season? Instead of clawing for the lone WC spot, as teams often do now, you will have teams who will think, " There's two of these spots, and it doesn't matter whether we're the first or second WC so no need to bust our ass". There MUST be a major disadvantage of being the first or second WC and ALSO a difference in treatment between the two WCs themselves. And if you want to compare it to the other major sports, compare it to one which has even 60% of the length that the MLB regular season has.

I must admit, however, my take on this is strongly prejudiced by AL-East binoculars, as it signals the end of the three-way race for two spots between the Sox, Yankees and Rays, a race which had become quite enjoyable.

[Rasputin]

Will adding another team in each league as the WC diminish the importance of wins in the regular season?

There may be situations where it does but that holds true of every single playoff system imaginable. If you have a team that is too far behind the division leader to catch up and too far ahead of the second wild card to lose out then yeah that team has a few fewer meaningful games. But you know what? The three teams vying for the second wild card spot have more meaningful games and the division leaders that are within a game or two of each other have more meaningful games.

Instead of clawing for the lone WC spot, as teams often do now, you will have teams who will think, " There's two of these spots, and it doesn't matter whether we're the first or second WC so no need to bust our ass".

I don't buy it. Last year the Yanks and Rays were in a similar situation where they were both going for the postseason and they pulled their foot off the gas for all of about a week.

There MUST be a major disadvantage of being the first or second WC and ALSO a difference in treatment between the two WCs themselves.

I don't see why there should be, why it makes any sense that there would be, or how it would be done. Having an advantage for winning your division makes sense. Having an advantage for being the fourth seed instead of the fifth doesn't really make sense. I mean, there's home field advantage which is a nice thing especially for the fans who can go but there's almost no way to give the fourth team an advantage over the fifth that isn't going to be completely ludicrous.

And if you want to compare it to the other major sports, compare it to one which has even 60% of the length that the MLB regular season has.

I don't see how length of season is remotely relevant.

I must admit, however, my take on this is strongly prejudiced by AL-East binoculars, as it signals the end of the three-way race for two spots between the Sox, Yankees and Rays, a race which had become quite enjoyable.

Over the past five postseasons, AL East teams have played 81 games (games between two AL East teams count twice) with the Central playing 37 and the West 39. Over the past three, the Central was won a grand total of one postseason game. The AL wildcard has come from the East 12 times and the Central and West a combined 4 times.

Other teams have to feel like the AL East is getting two spots and they are competing for one.

[The Mainahh]

I must admit, however, my take on this is strongly prejudiced by AL-East binoculars, as it signals the end of the three-way race for two spots between the Sox, Yankees and Rays, a race which had become quite enjoyable.

Exactly, your not looking at this for the benefit this will be for the league overall. This will keep more fringe teams in the mix until later in the year, and, especially if they go with the 1 game playoff model, actually add quite an incentive for teams to win a division so as to avoid a 1 game playoff just to make it to what is now the first round. Great idea, hope they can make it fly for next year.

[dynomite]

Baseball isn't a sport that lends itself to a one-game winner take all scenario. As a tiebreaker, sure. But in that case, whether it's a Game 7 or Game 163, it's between two teams who have been given a longer stretch and played each other even. But a potential 1-game playoff between a 98 win team and an 88 win team would be grossly unfair. Especially in the case where the 1st wild card has a better record than two of the division winners.

First of all, the MLB is probably going to great a best of 3 series for the two Wild Card teams. I'd just prefer it my way.

Second, I don't think you're making a consistent point. While you might be morally comfortable with a one-game playoff between teams with identical records, that means that practically baseball DOES lend itself to a "one-game winner take all scenario" no matter the relative strength of the teams. One-game playoffs are awesome, no matter the teams involved. It didn't matter to me in the least that the Twins and Tigers were both crappy 86-win teams in 2009. They had a one-game playoff so I was watching. Same with San Diego and Colorado in 2007 -- I watched that game because it was a one-game playoff, but I didn't care that both teams had only won 89 games during the season.

Overall, winning your division should matter. In your scenario, I'm totally fine with a 1-game playoff between a 98-win team and an 88-win team. The 98-win team by definition lost its division and came in 2nd. For the first 100 years of baseball until the mid-1990s, that 98-win team would have been sitting at home playing golf and crying. Don't want to play a 1-game playoff? Win your division.

[Spacemans Bong]

I strongly disagree for any number of reasons, which have been dealt with in depth in other threads.

Basically, the fundamental problem of your reasoning is that September will be exciting again, and winning your Division will be an actual reward again.

Instead of most of the league being eliminated by September 1, now the Division leaders will still have to play hard to win their Division and many teams will still be in Wild Card contention. For the first 100 years of baseball, winning your division entitled you to something special. In the last 15 years, winning a Wild Card was just as good as winning your division. No difference beyond homefield advantage.

In addition, baseball will still have the lowest percentage of teams making the playoffs of any major sport.

Here's what I wrote in one of the prior threads:





Edit:

I also think that "One Game Playoff Day!!!!" would be a ratings bonanza for the league and the PERFECT way to recapture a baseball audience heading into the playoffs. This year a 30-3 blowout Titans-Jaguars Monday Night Football game drew better ratings than the Yankees-Rangers ALCS (with Cliff Lee pitching). The baseball playoffs start as softly as a sunrise in a Downy factory at the moment. ONE GAME PLAYOFF DAY (with an early game at 5:05 EST and a late game at 8:35 EST) would be so much fun -- people would go to bars to watch, people would have parties... it would be a baseball day unlike anything but Opening Day, the perfect capstone to the regular season.

No they wouldn't.

We've had one game playoffs relatively frequently over the last couple years, including a brilliant Twins-Tigers game, and ratings still sucked.

This is like throwing a steak out to vegans..the public would much rather gamble on shitty football games than watch baseball they don't have a personal interest in. Fine, I don't give a fuck. If you don't want to watch the upstart Rangers throw Cliff Lee out against the Yankees, you are a fuckface and I don't want to be your friend.

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 22 April 2011 - 07:04 AM.

[RingoOSU]

I agree with bonger on this one. This is just to appease people who aren't fans, and just typical behavior of all corporations these days. Win over the masses for money instead of making the customer happy.
I could _live_ with a 1 game playoff, but anything else just makes me hate the idea. A bye is NOT an advantage in baseball. The last few years we've seen time and time again the team with the most time off in the postseason get their asses kicked in the next round.

[BucketOBalls]

A one game playoff would be a ratings boon for a while, but I think after a few years of the following
1) Team A beats obviously better team B in the one-game-playoff
2) Team A gets slaughtered by the higher seed

People would start to realize that only the top seeds really matter. You will bring in a couple more people, but I'm not sure it would be as much of a draw as people think. After a few years, I think people will just realize that a 1 game playoff is incredibly flukey and the magic will be gone. It will be exiting for a while, but I think it will wear off when people realize how random it is.


Really, I think the league is better off marketing it's strengths rather than trying to do something that doesn't work. The beauty of the current system is, if your team gets into the playoffs...they can win it all. Pretty much every game in the playoffs is between good teams. In something like the NBA teams fight for the last spots in order to have the honor of being a tuneup for the higher seed. Best case is they fluke win a series and get eliminated in the second round. Anything beyond that is incredibly rare.

Adding another wild card won't really make the races any better, as you only get a race for the last spot(i.e. the current WC now has a backup plan). Also, the teams that will be trying to get the last spot will be worse.

I don't think a one game playoff would really add as much as people think it would.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

I agree with bonger on this one. This is just to appease people who aren't fans, and just typical behavior of all corporations these days. Win over the masses for money instead of making the customer happy.
I could _live_ with a 1 game playoff, but anything else just makes me hate the idea. A bye is NOT an advantage in baseball. The last few years we've seen time and time again the team with the most time off in the postseason get their asses kicked in the next round.

The bolded part can't possibly true. And no amount of anecdotal evidence will make it so. You really think that any disadvantage associated with not being game ready or whatever actually outweighs the significant chance that your team might not even make it to the next round?

[RingoOSU]

You're right, I used too strong of language there. It's not the advantage it appears to be, is what I mean. Yes, I think winning the division should be rewarded. But the solution is to eliminate the wild card, not increase the number of teams who can knock off that division winner. I can see a 3 game series COULD create a rotation where the bye team has a better advantage, but if there's no off days for the wild card team, they're stuck with whatever rotation gets them the spot to begin with, which means it could still be Ace vs Ace.

Still, that's 5 games, or 6 days which would be a week for the other team to wait. I guess that's only a disadvantage if the team won the division on a hot streak, like the 2007 Rockies winning their spot. Easier for that WC team to stay hot than the division winner.

[dynomite]

No they wouldn't.

We've had one game playoffs relatively frequently over the last couple years, including a brilliant Twins-Tigers game, and ratings still sucked.

Where are you getting that from? I'm having trouble researching this, but as far as I can tell, late season ratings double when playoff races are implicated. From 2009:

Fox saw its Saturday afternoon numbers drop 10 percent to a 1.8 rating/2.74 million viewers. Fox ended its regular season Oct. 2 with a 1.2/1.7 million average for a Saturday afternoon schedule that had just one game with postseason implications. That’s 48 percent off 2008’s numbers, when the last weekend of the regular season featured three games that had playoff implications for Fox, drawing a 2.3 rating.

Experientially, for that Twins-Tigers game about 10 of us met up at a bar to watch it. At the bar were similar groups of people watching. It was a Tuesday night, yet the bar was packed with people, all of them watching the game.

Second, I found an article with cites that claims basically what I'm saying -- baseball loses it's audience because September baseball is boring. With no pennant races in most cities, and the ones there are happening on local TV instead in front of national audiences, people tune out.

The lack of real season long pennant races that climax in dramatic fashion in September deprives baseball of a strong product to compete with college football and the NFL. Baseball believes when they allow more individual teams into the postseason it increases fan interest. In reality, this piecemeal strategy leaves MLB without a strong national product. It decreases October viewers as their teams drop out of contention.

A 2nd Wild Card will make September meaningful again, keeping baseball relevant in more cities longer.

A one game playoff would be a ratings boon for a while, but I think after a few years of the following
1) Team A beats obviously better team B in the one-game-playoff
2) Team A gets slaughtered by the higher seed

I doubt it. Think of the 2007 Colorado Rockies. They won their one game playoff, then swept their way to the World Series. Of the 5 one game playoffs since the Wild Card, 2 have produced teams that won at least one series. (The '07 Rockies and '99 Mets) I don't think it's as dire as you're making it seem. In fact, the one game playoff would:
1. Present less of a disadvantage to the winner than a best of 3 series.
2. Prevent extending the season.

[Spacemans Bong]

11.4 million people watched the Tigers-Twins playoff, which is just over half who watched the Favre Bowl the night before (which is why the game was played on a Tuesday).

Like I said...people would rather watch shitty regular season football.

All this stuff about expanding the appeal and keeping fans interested is what they used to justify the wild card in 1994. Where is the end game here? Baseball gets a 16 team playoff season like the NBA and NHL, so fans of 77 win teams get to have September excitement? That's a fantastic idea given the complete financial mess both leagues are and how each league's regular season is a punchline because we all know the Celtics are going to make the playoffs, so what's the point? Baseball can't do a 16 game season like football so it makes the regular season count by having a very small number of teams make the playoffs.

All of this obfuscates the real issue: baseball is a local sport. Lazy casual fans, the type who mimic their little league coach and complain David Ortiz should choke up more and hit singles to the opposite field because he strikes out too much, do not watch the playoffs if their team's not in it. That doesn't necessarily mean baseball is in trouble - attendance has held up far better than anyone expected in a terrible economy and local TV ratings are better than ever. MLB actually knows this, so expanding the playoffs could potentially mean big-fanbase teams like the Yanks and ourselves don't miss the postseason short of a sub-.500 team, meaning bigger TV ratings for TBS. Score!

Selling it to Brewers fans that their 83 win team HAS A CHANCE! is more appealing than the reality, which is this is just about enshrining bigger fanbase teams as permanent playoff participants.

[BucketOBalls]

A 2nd Wild Card will make September meaningful again, keeping baseball relevant in more cities longer.

No it won't. You only get a race for the last spot accessible to a team. Wild card do increase races, since it's hard for a since team to run away with the WC spot. If you added a second wild card, then you get 1 WC team that is safe and has a fallback plan(the 5th spot), and a bunch of teams trying for that last spot. The race is among worse teams in this case.

Actually, it could reduce interest in some cases. With a single WC, if the WC happens to be better than the the division leader in other division(this is fairly common), you get a race in that division(if the WC isn't better, then teams not in the playoffs are chasing the wild card rather than the division). With a second wild card, that would happen less often, as the second best teams in 2 division could get spots.

Generally, adding more wild cards doesn't give you more races(sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, but on average it's the same), it just makes the wild card race among worse teams.


The way you get more pennant races is to make bunch of tiny, tiny divisions(1 per playoff spot) and force teams to win them. This is blatantly unfair though and might be obvious enough to put people off though.


The other way to increase pennant races would be to make teams actually race for playoff seeding. Currently they don't. Or at least, prepping for the playoffs is more important than trying for a higher seed. You could, say take the top 4 teams by record and give the higher seeds some sort of significant advantage over lower seeds, like they start with a run or something, basically, you want the advantage of being a higher seed to out weight lining up your rotation and putzing around like teams normally do. If you did that, you would get more races, as not only would teams be trying to reach the playoffs, they would be trying to get as high a spot as possible. The downside of that, of course, is that the #1 seed will win alot,as, not only are the the best team, but they have a significant advantage.

Adding a second wild card will get more cities involved(duh, as the playoffs are bigger), but it won't increase the number of postseason races.

[Rasputin]

No it won't. You only get a race for the last spot accessible to a team. Wild card do increase races, since it's hard for a since team to run away with the WC spot. If you added a second wild card, then you get 1 WC team that is safe and has a fallback plan(the 5th spot), and a bunch of teams trying for that last spot. The race is among worse teams in this case.

Actually, it could reduce interest in some cases. With a single WC, if the WC happens to be better than the the division leader in other division(this is fairly common), you get a race in that division(if the WC isn't better, then teams not in the playoffs are chasing the wild card rather than the division). With a second wild card, that would happen less often, as the second best teams in 2 division could get spots.

Generally, adding more wild cards doesn't give you more races(sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, but on average it's the same), it just makes the wild card race among worse teams.


The way you get more pennant races is to make bunch of tiny, tiny divisions(1 per playoff spot) and force teams to win them. This is blatantly unfair though and might be obvious enough to put people off though.


The other way to increase pennant races would be to make teams actually race for playoff seeding. Currently they don't. Or at least, prepping for the playoffs is more important than trying for a higher seed. You could, say take the top 4 teams by record and give the higher seeds some sort of significant advantage over lower seeds, like they start with a run or something, basically, you want the advantage of being a higher seed to out weight lining up your rotation and putzing around like teams normally do. If you did that, you would get more races, as not only would teams be trying to reach the playoffs, they would be trying to get as high a spot as possible. The downside of that, of course, is that the #1 seed will win alot,as, not only are the the best team, but they have a significant advantage.

Adding a second wild card will get more cities involved(duh, as the playoffs are bigger), but it won't increase the number of postseason races.

You're completely ignoring the fact that you have a race to get the first round bye.

[Saby]

11.4 million people watched the Tigers-Twins playoff, which is just over half who watched the Favre Bowl the night before (which is why the game was played on a Tuesday).

Like I said...people would rather watch shitty regular season football.

All this stuff about expanding the appeal and keeping fans interested is what they used to justify the wild card in 1994. Where is the end game here? Baseball gets a 16 team playoff season like the NBA and NHL, so fans of 77 win teams get to have September excitement? That's a fantastic idea given the complete financial mess both leagues are and how each league's regular season is a punchline because we all know the Celtics are going to make the playoffs, so what's the point? Baseball can't do a 16 game season like football so it makes the regular season count by having a very small number of teams make the playoffs.

All of this obfuscates the real issue: baseball is a local sport. Lazy casual fans, the type who mimic their little league coach and complain David Ortiz should choke up more and hit singles to the opposite field because he strikes out too much, do not watch the playoffs if their team's not in it. That doesn't necessarily mean baseball is in trouble - attendance has held up far better than anyone expected in a terrible economy and local TV ratings are better than ever. MLB actually knows this, so expanding the playoffs could potentially mean big-fanbase teams like the Yanks and ourselves don't miss the postseason short of a sub-.500 team, meaning bigger TV ratings for TBS. Score!

Selling it to Brewers fans that their 83 win team HAS A CHANCE! is more appealing than the reality, which is this is just about enshrining bigger fanbase teams as permanent playoff participants.

Precisely.

[RingoOSU]

Yep, the key benefits of this in the last 10 years would be:
2010 Red Sox and Padres
2009 Giants and Rangers
2008 Yankees and Mets
2007 Tigers/Mariners and Padres
2006 White Sox and Phillies
2005 Indians and Phillies
2004 A's and Giants
2003 Mariners and Astros
2002 Red Sox and Dodgers
2001 Twins and Giants

Really, I'm not sure if many of these fanbases would have grown from the extra spots. The teams that rarely make the playoffs had recently made it within a couple years before, or made it within a couple years after.

Edited by RingoOSU, 22 April 2011 - 02:56 PM.

[Rasputin]

You're right, I used too strong of language there. It's not the advantage it appears to be, is what I mean. Yes, I think winning the division should be rewarded. But the solution is to eliminate the wild card, not increase the number of teams who can knock off that division winner. I can see a 3 game series COULD create a rotation where the bye team has a better advantage, but if there's no off days for the wild card team, they're stuck with whatever rotation gets them the spot to begin with, which means it could still be Ace vs Ace.

Still, that's 5 games, or 6 days which would be a week for the other team to wait. I guess that's only a disadvantage if the team won the division on a hot streak, like the 2007 Rockies winning their spot. Easier for that WC team to stay hot than the division winner.

The sheer mathematics makes it pretty much impossible for the first round by to be anything but a huge advantage.

The time off argument is pretty nonsensical when you look at the current situation. With one day after the regular season reserved for potential one game playoffs games if necessary, a three game wild card series, and one day reserved for travel after the last game of the wild card series you would have finished the 2010 regular season on 10/3 and started the division seres on 10/9. That's a six day gap. The 2010 ALCS ended on 10/22 and the NLCS on 10/23 and the World Series started on 10/27 making for a gap of five days for the AL team and four for the NL team. In a world where four and five day gaps are acceptable with no games on TV just so the TV people can have the schedule their way then a six day gap with compelling baseball in between has to be acceptable.

While a wild card team could end up not using their ace in a single wild card playoff the only situations in which that would happen are a) They can't, or B) They think they have a better matchup with someone else. Realistically speaking, if the ace is available, he's pitching. In a three game wild card series the only way the ace doesn't pitch is if he's hurt. Assuming the ace pitches Game 1 of the wild card series he's pitching on short rest in Game 1 of the division series if at all.

[RingoOSU]

Sorry, I was misreading 3 game wild card series as a first to win 3.

[cannonball 1729]

Second, I don't think you're making a consistent point. While you might be morally comfortable with a one-game playoff between teams with identical records, that means that practically baseball DOES lend itself to a "one-game winner take all scenario" no matter the relative strength of the teams. One-game playoffs are awesome, no matter the teams involved. It didn't matter to me in the least that the Twins and Tigers were both crappy 86-win teams in 2009. They had a one-game playoff so I was watching. Same with San Diego and Colorado in 2007 -- I watched that game because it was a one-game playoff, but I didn't care that both teams had only won 89 games during the season.

This isn't inconsistent at all. If there's a tie then a one game playoff is a much more equitable solution than what most other leagues use (head-to-head matchups, conference records, etc.) because it at least settles the tie on the field. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best one possible given that the two teams have identical records after 162 attempts to differentiate themselves. The best-of-three was the method of choice for a little while (like when Bobby Thompson's home run won the pennant), but it's not practical to push the playoffs back 3-5 days any time two teams tie in the final standings. That doesn't make the one game playoff a particularly good solution - it's merely the best of the available options.

That's worlds different from MLB set up the system where a team wins 98 games, is the second team in the league, and then risks having a single bad game (which is something that happens more often in baseball than in other sports) against an 88 win team and bowing out because the league decided that the extra 10 wins should be outweighed by a single game. Baseball has more game-to-game variation than any other sport, which basically makes a one-game tiebreaker a (slightly weighted) coin flip. It becomes exacerbated if the 88-win team has a dominating ace; I don't really see the merit in a system where an 88-win 2007 Mariners team could back into the playoffs as a second wildcard and then smoke the first wildcard by throwing King Felix in the one-game playoff.

I'll repeat what Hendu said - baseball isn't a sport that lends itself to a one-game winner-take-all-scenario if you want the playoff results to be any reflection of how good the team is.

Edited by cannonball 1729, 22 April 2011 - 02:52 PM.

[Rasputin]

I'll repeat what Hendu said - baseball isn't a sport that lends itself to a one-game winner-take-all-scenario if you want the playoff results to be any reflection of how good the team is.

Baseball doesn't care if the world series champion is the best team in baseball.

Giving the best regular season teams a first round bye makes it more likely that the best team will win.

[Spacemans Bong]

Baseball doesn't care if the world series champion is the best team in baseball.

Giving the best regular season teams a first round bye makes it more likely that the best team will win.

Marginally more likely, in the sense they can recover from some hammy pulls and line up their rotation. But it's by no means an overpowering advantage, and I don't think it would result in any meaningful change in "best teams" winning the pennant.

Besides, if this was some overriding concern, nothing is stopping MLB from going to the format that worked from 1901-1968.

[Zupcic Fan]

I have always been in favor of a system that gives more of an advantage to the higher seeds. In hockey, for example, I would love a system where in the 1-8, 2-7' and 3-6 series, but not in the 4-5 series, the lower seed has to win 5 of the 7 games. Here are the advantages: 1) a real reason to care about finishing in the top 3 and avoiding the 6 to 8 seeds 2) a real fight to finish 3 and not 4. Or to finish 5 and not 6 3) a system where the better teams really have an advantage in a sport where just home ice doesn't mean that much 4) the possibility of great excitement when a lower seed might actually come close to winning those 5 games. Then in round 2 it would all be best of 7. As it now stands, I don't see why any hockey fan would care about regular season games unless they are in danger of not finishing in the top 8

I wouldn't mind baseball expanding the playoff teams if they could figure out a similar real way for the better teams to have some kind of real advantage for having a better year.

[BucketOBalls]

You're completely ignoring the fact that you have a race to get the first round bye.

I'm not sure that would help that much. You don't often see much of a race for the first round bye in the NFL, where it is a bigger advantage. Even with the rust effect, it would still be an advantage, but I'm not sure teams would go all that hard for it. They might just assume that they will be number 2 and line up that way. Going to hard for the bye would hurt a team if they didn't make(and looks bad to the fans), so I doubt you would see many teams try to hard in this area.

It's definitely an advantage, but less so than in the NFL I think. Even in the NFL, it never seems like more of a race than the one for seeding really.

[Rasputin]

I'm not sure that would help that much. You don't often see much of a race for the first round bye in the NFL, where it is a bigger advantage. Even with the rust effect, it would still be an advantage, but I'm not sure teams would go all that hard for it. They might just assume that they will be number 2 and line up that way. Going to hard for the bye would hurt a team if they didn't make(and looks bad to the fans), so I doubt you would see many teams try to hard in this area.

It's definitely an advantage, but less so than in the NFL I think. Even in the NFL, it never seems like more of a race than the one for seeding really.

I am not sure the bye in baseball is less than football but you sure as hell do see a race for the byes in football.

[Rasputin]

Marginally more likely, in the sense they can recover from some hammy pulls and line up their rotation. But it's by no means an overpowering advantage, and I don't think it would result in any meaningful change in "best teams" winning the pennant.

Besides, if this was some overriding concern, nothing is stopping MLB from going to the format that worked from 1901-1968.

You get to line up your rotation and if it's a one game wild card playoff then the other team is likely putting their ace up in game 3 at the earliest.

[JakeRae]

If MLB wants to balance the schedule, eliminate divisions, and make the 4th and 5th best regular season teams play for the right to really be in the playoffs, I'm somewhat ok with that.

But, as long as MLB has a scenario where the second best regular season team in a league can be a wild card team, it makes no sense to put that team at a structural disadvantage in the playoffs to the division winners not from their division. I can list other reasons why I strongly oppose this move, but this is the most important, in my mind.

I will consider boycotting the playoffs if they go to a 10-team playoff. Does anyone here really believe last years Sox team deserved a chance to compete with the Yankees in a 1-3 game series for a playoff birth?

[BucketOBalls]

I am not sure the bye in baseball is less than football but you sure as hell do see a race for the byes in football.

You do,but there much less downside to trying for the bye in football also. Worst case, you get a normal game against a meh opponent.

I'm not sure an MLB team would, say, use their ace in a game in an attempt to get the bye(and start game 1 of the second round) because if they failed, then they would not have that pitcher till, say game 3 or so of the first round.

Another way of thinking about the bye week is:

Assuming a team had their rotation lined up and was fine in a health sense, if given a choice, would a team rather start their postseason on a normal schedule or take a week off first? I think most would rather stay on schedule. I don't think the disruption totally removes the advantage of automatically passing the first round, but it does reduce it. You could remove that by making the series short enough that the bye isn't that long, but that has it's own problems.


I'm not sure you would see that much of a race for the bye. Especially given the fact that the #2 team would be facing the #5, so the path for the team that does not get the bye is pretty easy also.

[kartvelo]

If seedings truly mean something, and indicate which teams are stronger, then there is a built-in disadvantage for the lower-seeded teams... they have to beat superior competition.

[Spacemans Bong]

You get to line up your rotation and if it's a one game wild card playoff then the other team is likely putting their ace up in game 3 at the earliest.

Cool, so then they can beat you with their 2 and 3. That happens all the time.

[Rasputin]

Cool, so then they can beat you with their 2 and 3. That happens all the time.

Did this comment have a point? Are you trying to suggest that a) I somehow think aces never lose or that b) someone thinks their second best starter is better than their best which is definitionally incorrect?

The ability to line up your rotation is huge, especially for teams that are underdogs in postseason series.

[Rasputin]

Assuming a team had their rotation lined up and was fine in a health sense, if given a choice, would a team rather start their postseason on a normal schedule or take a week off first? I think most would rather stay on schedule. I don't think the disruption totally removes the advantage of automatically passing the first round, but it does reduce it. You could remove that by making the series short enough that the bye isn't that long, but that has it's own problems.

If staying on schedule didn't involve halving your chances of winning the ultimate prize I am sure most teams would stay on schedule.

If I really and truly had my way you'd have a three game series played over two days. You'd have two AL games and one NL game on one day and two NL games and one AL game the next day.

I suspect we're going to end up with one game playoffs which minimizes the delay and maximizes the OMG WE GOTTA WIN factor. It will be fun and exciting and make an astonishing amount of money for some people and sometimes it will be a throbbing kick in the balls to the 2nd place team in the AL East.

[Spacemans Bong]

Did this comment have a point? Are you trying to suggest that a) I somehow think aces never lose or that b) someone thinks their second best starter is better than their best which is definitionally incorrect?

The ability to line up your rotation is huge, especially for teams that are underdogs in postseason series.

You're the one throwing out arbitrary numbers as fact. You're suggesting you have a 50% advantage by lining up your rotation in a series. It's nowhere near that much.

If you are concerned about the best team not having a big enough advantage then put fewer teams in the playoffs, not more.

[Lars The Wanderer]

Tim Lincecum is not a fan.

If other players share his view, Lincecum would make a terrific leader in any crusade against adding a second wild-card team to each league's playoffs. By the way, players can veto that playoff proposal before it takes root in baseball's next labor deal.

"It doesn't seem very fair, and personally I don't know where his head is at," Lincecum said of Selig. "It doesn't seem right to me."

Who knew baseball's tradition meant so much to the rebellious-looking guy with shoulder-length hair and an unconventional (but dominant) pitching delivery?

"I don't know, man. I don't see why you need to fix something that isn't broken," Lincecum continued. "Players like it the way it is. It's dog-eat-dog. People know they need to win 11 games to win the World Series.

"Nobody wants to have to worry, 'Oh (expletive), now I've got another (expletive) team in the (expletive) mix. Now we have to worry about what that takes and what they're going to do.' What if the (second) wild-card team is not deserving of getting in?"

Edited by Lars The Wanderer, 23 April 2011 - 11:56 AM.