Does the Gimmick Game really disadvantage its winner?

[Plympton91]

Assuming the Cubs finish off the Giants in 4 (since Bumgarner is apparently Kong), the winners of the gimmick games will be 5-5 in the Division Series round.

If one assumes that the point of the gimmick game is to further disadvantage the team that did not win a division, and also the plausible assumption that the team with the best record (TWBR) in the league is at least somewhat better than the wild card team, shouldn't we assume a better than 5-5 record? (Could, of course, be small sample size noise).

It is obviously a disadvantage to the team that loses the gimmick game. However, I am starting to wonder whether the gimmick game is a net benefit to the winner. This is for two reasons. First, the TWBR gets 3 or 4 days off, losing the day-to-day edge that is crucial for baseball, especially on offense. Whereas the gimmick game allows the winner to keep sharper, with no more than 2 days off in a row. Second, and less importantly, the gimmick game win generates some momentum, which can be carried over, while the TWBR often played out the string after clinching, and hasn't played a meaningful game in sometimes over a week.

If my theory that the time off affects offense disproportionately is correct, it could be tested with something like runs scored vs. expected runs scored for the TWBR, especially in the first two games of the series. Maybe I'll do that at some point, but it's probably not straightforward to control for park, starting pitchers, weather, etc. Might have to wait for a larger sample size too. Still, at 5-5, it has, to date, been no worse than a coin flip once you win the gimmick.

 

[mauf]

The disadvantage of not winning your division is that you have a 50/50 chance (give or take) of having your season end in the gimmick game. I always figured the winner of that game had the same 1-in-8 chance of winning the World Series as everyone else -- not being able to use your #1 starter twice in the Division Series is a disadvantage, but only a slight one for most teams.

This year, coming out of the WC games, the numbers would've said the Blue Jays were probably a slight favorite to oust the Rangers (who were ridiculously lucky this season), and the Cubs were about as heavy a favorite over the Giants as one postseason team can be over another in a 5-game series.

 

[Stitch01]

Right. By that stat teams that make the Wild Card game are making the LCS 25% of the time (5 make it, 15 don't) while division winners are making the LCS 50% of the time. That's the disadvantage for not winning the division.

 

[grimshaw]

I'm not even sure the Rangers would have been a 3rd place team in the AL East, so the outcome to that particular series isn't a huge shock. But, definitely a small sample size over all. The imbalanced schedule will forever advantage or screw over at least one team.

I know he isn't general liked around SOSH, but I thought Bob Costas had a great idea during game 2.
If the season is ever shortened by a few games - 3-6 games or so -and they go the 7 game series route for the LDS series (both definite ifs but seemingly a win-win for players/owners), he proposed a 2-2-3 format which would give the division winner a 5-2 home field advantage vs the WC winner.

 

[Plympton91]

Right. By that stat teams that make the Wild Card game are making the LCS 25% of the time (5 make it, 15 don't) while division winners are making the LCS 50% of the time. That's the disadvantage for not winning the division.

Is that the disadvantage of not winning the division, or is it the difference in talent between the division winner and the wild card team. Per baseball's official rationale for the gimmick game, both effects should be present, on average. And remember, it's not just "Division winner" it's the division winner with the most wins. So the gap should be wider, on average.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I'm not even sure the Rangers would have been a 3rd place team in the AL East, so the outcome to that particular series isn't a huge shock. But, definitely a small sample size over all. The imbalanced schedule will forever advantage or screw over at least one team.

I know he isn't general liked around SOSH, but I thought Bob Costas had a great idea during game 2.
If the season is ever shortened by a few games - 3-6 games or so -and they go the 7 game series route for the LDS series (both definite ifs but seemingly a win-win for players/owners), he proposed a 2-2-3 format which would give the division winner a 5-2 home field advantage vs the WC winner.

Too bad my suggestion (to mollify the winners of mediocre divisions who hated WC teams like the Sox beating them in the playoffs) never got traction. I wanted the WC team to host Game 1 of the ALDS and then have the other 4 games at the division winner's park. I never wanted the gimmick game to exist.

 

[Stitch01]

Im including all division winners (5 wild cards made the ALCS, 5 lost in the divisional round, 10 lost in the wild card game, 5 best record teams made the LCS, 5 didn't, the other Divisional series rounds a division winner wins and loses by definitions). The difference between the 25% and 50% is pretty much what Maufman says. Primarily the advantage is from not having to play a coinflip game.

Trying to figure out what the added advantage is for the team with the best record based on ten series, good luck.

Cutting the chances of advancing past the first round by half, give or take, seems like enough of a handicap for a wild card team but YMMV.

 

[VORP Speed]

The format should be a best of 3 wildcard round with a doubleheader the first day followed by game 3 the following day and no day off before the LDS (doubleheader Tuesday, Game 3 if necessary Wednesday and then the winner starts the LDS on Thurs). Wildcard team is forced to burn 2 or three of their top starters, tax the bullpen and comes into LDS with a meaningful disadvantage. You get more games for TV, a more baseball-like series instead of a one game playoff to determine wildcard winner, add no additional days to the playoffs and make getting the #1 seed much more valuable.

 

[jose melendez]

The format should be a best of 3 wildcard round with a doubleheader the first day followed by game 3 the following day and no day off before the LDS (doubleheader Tuesday, Game 3 if necessary Wednesday and then the winner starts the LDS on Thurs). Wildcard team is forced to burn 2 or three of their top starters, tax the bullpen and comes into LDS with a meaningful disadvantage. You get more games for TV, a more baseball-like series instead of a one game playoff to determine wildcard winner, add no additional days to the playoffs and make getting the #1 seed much more valuable.

This is my brother's theory. I love it. Doubleheaders are fun, and you have all three games at the better wildcard teams park.

 

[judyb]

Wasn't the main point always to add another WC team to keep more teams in the race and their fans interested longer, you know, buying tickets and watching commercials, without lengthening the postseason by much?

 

[jon abbey]

The division system is the problem, much more than the playoff system. It didn't matter this year because none of the non-division winners even won 90 games, but the 2015 NL playoffs showed just how ridiculous the current system can be. The three best records in all of baseball belonged to NL Central teams, yet two of them had to play the Gimmick Game (this is an even better name than the Coin Flip Game, kudos) and the winner had to play the top seed, like putting the top three seeds in a tennis tournament all into the same quarter of the draw. Dump the division system and take the top five teams in the league.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Wasn't the main point always to add another WC team to keep more teams in the race and their fans interested longer, you know, buying tickets and watching commercials, without lengthening the postseason by much?

All that does is punish good wild card with a coin flip against a team who may have been behind by a few or more games, but in a division with multiple 90+ game losers. It's a stupid concept fixing a non-existent problem.

In the AL, the play-in hasn't solved anything. In 2012, the Orioles and Rangers would have faced off anyway, no? In 2013, the race was a three way anyway, but had Tampa won 93 games, they would have needed a coin toss game against either a team from a bad division, or from an awful one (only Toronto was sub-.500 in the AL East). 2014 basically came down to the wire without the play-in game. And so on. Its existence doesn't fix any problems, and only creates it when it forces teams like the 2004 Red Sox, if it was around then, to play a one and done game just to make it into the ALDS.

 

[Plympton91]

This is my brother's theory. I love it. Doubleheaders are fun, and you have all three games at the better wildcard teams park.

I like is that idea. Couple it with Abbey's suggestion of getting rid of divisions and it would be much better as well.

However, it still doesn't solve the problem of division winners ending up with a 3 or 4 day layoff. Both the gimmick games should be on Monday and then playoffs start Tuesday. But they need the off day before to play a tiebreaker if necessary, and an off day after in case of rain, and then they want to maximize TV ratings, so they play on separate days.

It's why I've taken to calling it a postseason tournament and not the playoffs, and replaced "World Series" with "Chaminship Round" in my vernacular.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I like is that idea. Couple it with Abbey's suggestion of getting rid of divisions and it would be much better as well.

However, it still doesn't solve the problem of division winners ending up with a 3 or 4 day layoff. Both the gimmick games should be on Monday and then playoffs start Tuesday. But they need the off day before to play a tiebreaker if necessary, and an off day after in case of rain, and then they want to maximize TV ratings, so they play on separate days.

It's why I've taken to calling it a postseason tournament and not the playoffs, and replaced "World Series" with "Chaminship Round" in my vernacular.

If they played both games on Tuesday, and then made both of those teams play on Wednesday, it would seem like more of a disadvantage. Instead, by the time they do play, their rotation should be lined up unless they were lucky enough to have their ace go during the WC game. SF played 1 game in 4 days. You'd think they would be forced to play on Thursday, but nope.

They would never do it, but playing the WC games on a neutral field one after the other would fix that problem. Of course you would be limited to fields where you know the weather wouldn't be an issue. It'd also take something away from the all star game and you'd have the possibility the WC team ends up playing at home anyway, or Toronto playing Baltimore in Fenway (which probably wouldn't be a choice due to weather concerns) on Monday only to be playing the Redsox at Fenway on Tuesday.

 

[grimshaw]

The doubleheaders just don't work logistically, unless they aren't separate admission.

Say the Red Sox were to play and split in Seattle in a DH on the west coast. They'd do something like a 4pm and 9:30pm EST since they need to leave at least 4 hours for the game itself, clean up the aisles, prep the field etc. and then get people out and in to the stadium. Those scheduling times mean people at work in Seattle miss half the game, and people in Boston fall sleep before the 4th inning. If the DH were on the east coast it'd be more like 3 and 8. The 3pm game is really early for the west coast but not as bad.

It's also not unheard of for playoff games to go over 4 hours with the extra commercials, so there could be instances where nightcaps get bumped back even later. Imagine 40,000 fans standing outside the park waiting to get in - or fans driving to the park while the crowd is leaving game 1. And that's not accounting for rain delays either.

IF you did something like the old fashioned twilight doubleheader (not separate admission) there would still be scheduling conflicts. You'd be staggering the AL one day and the NL the next, but you'd have potential elimination games going up against each other on the second day (ie, a night cap vs. a game 3).

Many of us here would watch no matter what, but the average fan couldn't devote that much time.

 

[jon abbey]

Or just go back to four teams making the playoffs from each league, that worked just fine.

 

[trekfan55]

Or just go back to four teams making the playoffs from each league, that worked just fine.

That will probably not happen. I have never seen any league cut down on their playoff teams.

At the end of the day, once the 8 teams for the ALDS are set they have the same chance to win, except that maybe the WC team will either have extended their bullpen or used up their ace (What would happen of the Giants couls use Mad Bum in games 1 & 5)? However, this did happen under the old system, like when the Sox had to play till the last day to get in and Schilling was not available until Game 4 in 2005 (a game 4 that never happened).

 

[jon abbey]

None of this will happen, MLB has never been interested in making the postseason system more fair. They decide home field advantage in the World Series based on a freaking exhibition game, postseason baseball really is both the best and worst.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

I agree with getting rid of divisions. Can we get rid of the 14 extraneous teams and go back to eight teams per league, too?

 

[Plympton91]

I agree with getting rid of divisions. Can we get rid of the 14 extraneous teams and go back to eight teams per league, too?

I bet if you account for population growth, desegregation, and the opening of foreign markets in Latin America, Asia, and even a little Australia and Europe, there are way too few teams. I think they ought to expand by 6 teams within the next decade. Start with Charlotte and Las Vegas in 2019, then 2 more in 2022, and 2 more in 2026.

 

[Stitch01]

Or just go back to four teams making the playoffs from each league, that worked just fine.

With best-of-seven first round series and this would be fine too.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I bet if you account for population growth, desegregation, and the opening of foreign markets in Latin America, Asia, and even a little Australia and Europe, there are way too few teams. I think they ought to expand by 6 teams within the next decade. Start with Charlotte and Las Vegas in 2019, then 2 more in 2022, and 2 more in 2026.

The old Bill James argument. He was saying similar things back in the mid-90s in his Historical Baseball Abstract.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

I bet if you account for population growth, desegregation, and the opening of foreign markets in Latin America, Asia, and even a little Australia and Europe, there are way too few teams. I think they ought to expand by 6 teams within the next decade. Start with Charlotte and Las Vegas in 2019, then 2 more in 2022, and 2 more in 2026.

I wouldn't take that sucker bet. Even so...

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The doubleheaders just don't work logistically, unless they aren't separate admission.

This is why you schedule the double header as games 2 and 3 rather than 1 and 2. You make the double header single admission and if Game 3 isn't needed, no problem, everyone goes home early.

 

[grimshaw]

This is why you schedule the double header as games 2 and 3 rather than 1 and 2. You make the double header single admission and if Game 3 isn't needed, no problem, everyone goes home early.

That's a little more reasonable, but still doesn't account for finding a way to get both potential elimination games at a time when people can watch them.

 

[Plympton91]

That's a little more reasonable, but still doesn't account for finding a way to get both potential elimination games at a time when people can watch them.

Hence the phrase "gimmick game"