Thoughts on the five game first round playoff series?

[danzig6767]

With the Brewers looking to have a pretty good chance to make the playoffs, it got me to thinking about a possible first round series. Unlike basketball who switched their first round series from five games to seven, baseball has it at five games and i wonder what other baseball fans think of that?

 

Baseball has by far the longest regular season in pro sports, a marathon 162 game schedule and i understand that by the time we get to the end of the World Series, it's in late October. With that said, to me the five game opening round series just seems to short given all it takes to make the playoffs over 162 games. A team can win 100 games, but in a five game series, say a poor start by their ace in the opening game and a great start by the opposing starter in game two can pretty much put a quick end to that teams season.

 

Granted, even in a seven game series, upsets can happen for sure, but at least in a seven game series, a bad first two games won't nearly for sure sink you. Adding potentially two more games to the playoffs doesn't seem to me to be something baseball couldn't figure out schedule wise without games going into November.

[sbrylski]

I wouldn't be opposed to nine game series' and going back to 154 game regular season.

[DougJones43]

I absolutely HATE the 5-game series, for pretty much all the reasons you pointed out. I also agree with Sam in that I'd prefer to see the regular season shortened. It's far too long. This will never happed of course, because of baseball's obsession with counting stats in the 162-game schedule. The records are all tarnished anyway by performance enhancing drugs, so who really cares. That could be another good question for this thread: Would you be opposed at all to a shortened schedule?

 

My vote: End the regular season in mid-September, and have all 7-game series.

[dlk9s]

My vote: End the regular season in mid-September, and have all 7-game series.

I vote for the regular season to end on August 31. I'd take September 5, though.

[Invader3K]

My vote: End the regular season in mid-September, and have all 7-game series.

I vote for the regular season to end on August 31. I'd take September 5, though.

Right...because 22 teams aren't going to mind giving up a month's worth of revenue, right?

 

Baseball isn't going to shorten the season based on economics...but I could see them expanding that opening round at some point. The thing is that so many traditionalists were against expanding the playoffs at all to begin with. I think the five game series is seen as a "do or die" type scenario.

[dlk9s]

Right...because 22 teams aren't going to mind giving up a month's worth of revenue, right?

It was a joke. Think about why I would pick those dates.

[jeffy]

It would never happen, but they could bring a few scheduled double headers (they could even make them day/night so as not to lose ticket sales) and end the season a few days earlier so that the 5 game first round could be 7 without things going any later than they already do.

[joepepsi]

If they eliminated the All Star game they could end a week earlier and make the first round a 7 game series.

 

I'm down with that.

[Patrick425]

Everyone always talks about 154 games instead of 162. Why is 154 the magic number? Just because that's what the schedule use to be? Why do we need to chop off 8 games in the regular season in order to add 2 to the post season?

 

Unlike others, I don't think the regular season is too long. I can't get enough baseball.

[logan82]

Patrick425 wrote:

Unlike others, I don't think the regular season is too long. I can't get enough baseball.

I can't get enough baseball either, but the post season goes on for so long that weather starts to become an issue. Other than that, I would like to see all 7-game series in the playoffs. If every team was sensible and put a roof on their new stadiums, then I have no problem with a longer postseason. I just don't think baseball should be played in the snow.

[Invader3K]

Everyone always talks about 154 games instead of 162. Why is 154 the magic number? Just because that's what the schedule use to be? Why do we need to chop off 8 games in the regular season in order to add 2 to the post season?

 

Unlike others, I don't think the regular season is too long. I can't get enough baseball.

I agree. Why not make it 160? Seems like that would be perfect if they want to add two post season games.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

As stated, 154 is just because that's what the old schedule was. One less week of the baseball season, given the bad weather on each end wouldn't be so bad. Plus, even the Brewers in-week crowds have come down now that school has started...not to mention the Marlins fiasco the other day.

 

As much as I love all the historical records and stats, they've all been tarnished anyway by the steroid era. I know that Hank hit 755, but off hand I can't remember how many Bonds wound up with...and I'm a fairly involved fan. I'd trade only one week of the season for a 7 game first round.

[jeffy]

154 and 162 were, I believe, just numbers that worked out with the number of teams that they had. 154 was when there were 8 teams in each league, 22 games against each team with 7 teams to play against gave 154.

 

162 was 18 games against each of 9 teams when there were 10 in each league. Then when they went to 12 and two divisions it was 18 games against the 5 other teams in your division and 12 against the 6 in the other division. I think at one point the AL changed that and went to a "balanced" schedule instead of using the 12 and 18, they played about the same number of games against each team in the league but since 162 is not divisible by 11 they had to have unequal numbers of games against different teams...thus destroying the symetry that had existed. (What is the matter with the AL anyway... messing up the scheduling, creating the DH)

 

Now with different numbers of teams in each league and division, 162 is essentially just an arbitrary number and there is no possibility of finding another number that would give the beautiful symetry that used to exist with the 12 and 18. Numbers like that which are divisible by both 2 and 3 work the best for baseball, as everything can then be 3 game series and equal home and away match-ups.

[Legacy25GT]

154 and 162 were, I believe, just numbers that worked out with the number of teams that they had. 154 was when there were 8 teams in each league, 22 games against each team with 7 teams to play against gave 154.

 

162 was 18 games against each of 9 teams when there were 10 in each league. Then when they went to 12 and two divisions it was 18 games against the 5 other teams in your division and 12 against the 6 in the other division. I think at one point the AL changed that and went to a "balanced" schedule instead of using the 12 and 18, they played about the same number of games against each team in the league but since 162 is not divisible by 11 they had to have unequal numbers of games against different teams...thus destroying the symetry that had existed. (What is the matter with the AL anyway... messing up the scheduling, creating the DH)

 

Now with different numbers of teams in each league and division, 162 is essentially just an arbitrary number and there is no possibility of finding another number that would give the beautiful symetry that used to exist with the 12 and 18. Numbers like that which are divisible by both 2 and 3 work the best for baseball, as everything can then be 3 game series and equal home and away match-ups.

 

If only we were able to get 6 expansion teams to have 6 divisions of 6 teams. Then you have 18 games against each division opponent (90 games) and 6 games against each non-division opponent in the league (72 games) which comes to 162 games without any inter-league games. If you really want interleague games, you can take away 6 games from each division opponent and instead have 3 games against 10 interleague teams (30 games). Trouble is trying to find 6 teams to join the league... which cities don't have baseball... New Orleans, Charlotte, Portland, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, Dallas.

[jeffy]

How about 6 division of 5...

 

18 games against each division opponent for a total of 72 games.

6 against the other 10 teams in the league = 60.

6 against teams in one division of the other league = 30

 

Total = 162

 

Yes, this requires moving one team from the NL to the AL and interleague all season.

[trwi7]

If it requires interleague all season then why even have an AL and NL?

[ecjimg]

Trouble is trying to find 6 teams to join the league... which cities don't have baseball... New Orleans, Charlotte, Portland, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, Dallas.

 

Dallas/Ft. Worth of course has the Texas Rangers. I still like the idea of baseball in Las Vegas. Maybe add Indy to that list. What I REALLY would like (and I know it will never happen) is a second team in Boston or a third team in the NY, NJ area. Lets change the TV revenue playing field if the economics dont get better for the small market teams.

[jeffy]

If it requires interleague all season then why even have an AL and NL?

 

Would it be okay if they called them "conferences" instead of "leagues"?

 

Why have divisions, when there is inter-divisional play all season long?

[Mike Felder]

I'm generally not a big fan of a 5-game, potential upset series in the first round, but I may be able to make an exception this year, given that the Brewers finally have one of those aces who can turn a series like that.

[sbrylski]

FYI, Sacramento leads all minors in attendance, so I always thought that would be a good location for a new team. And then Jersey. (Though I've also read studies that conclude there are zero locations for a new successful baseball team.)

 

8 Divisions of 4.

[holybannana]

I think we could squeeze a few more teams in Florida. Whaddya think?!

[jeffy]

I'm generally not a big fan of a 5-game, potential upset series in the first round, but I may be able to make an exception this year, given that the Brewers finally have one of those aces who can turn a series like that.

 

True, assuming CC wins two they just have to get one win out of the remaining three games.

 

On locations for new teams, I'd first go with choices that eventually might siphon revenue from the Yankees...maybe NJ and Connecticut if not additional teams in NY. This will never happen, of course.

[holybannana]

If you think you could siphon revenues from the Yankees, you're crazy.

 

The Yankees are far bigger than NYC. Put every team in the NYC area and you'll have just as many Yankee fans. They are a legendary team with a history of excellence and millions of people everywhere love this. The Yankees are bigger than baseball in many ways and no team in that area will ever overtake this.

 

Love 'em or hate 'em, they are what they are. And millions of people that will never set foot in the great city of New York (best city in the world IMO. I'd rather be nowhere else.) love this organization for what it represents: History, excellence and tradition.

[jeffy]

Gee, I wonder how the Mets survive and do well enough to have a $138,000 payroll...yes, this pales in comparison to the Yankees $209,000, but it is the 3rd highest in MLB and #1 in the NL.