Reformatting the Postseason

[sbrylski]

I hate the wildcard more than anything in the MLB today. You had one hundred and sixty-two games to demonstrate your team's ability. You shouldn't get a second chance for simply being a good second place team, and then have the subsequent 5-game series trump the previous 162-game season. Also, a four team division is ridiculous. Give me one good reason why

one of those four AL West teams has to be in the playoffs every year.

There isn't any.

 

Unfortunately, I realize both are likely here to stay, and I don't really believe in the political feasibility of my ideas, but its fun to talk about.

 

I probably come across above as beginning to advocate a balanced schedule, and the team at the top of the standings at the end of the season wins the league. I do believe that to be the fairest and most simple system, but I also believe its not exciting. Obviously what would happen is more teams falling out of the race by midseason, and almost all the teams are not playing for anything the last weeks of the season. In otherwords, more meaningless games. A league that does determine its champion this way is the English Premier League, however it derives excitement over fighting to not be demoted via finishing in the bottom three, and also making the Champions League by finishing in the top five, IIRC. The MLB has no prizes other than the winning the championship.

 

So, I understand it is desireable to have more teams involved for a greater majority of the season. But to me the wildcard isn't the fair solution. For one, the post-season is too short to yield a meaningful result. It should be lengthened, if more teams are going to qualify. As a result, the regular season would end up shorter - however I believe this to be a positive as it lends credence to giving non-first place teams another chance.

 

I would be in favor of something along these lines:

 

No divisions, and a regular season of 132 games without interleague play, ending August 31st or shortly thereafter.

 

After the regular season, the top six teams from each league form two postseason pools (AL and NL) and play a home and home series against everyone in their pool. The point here is to concentrate the top teams and have them duke it out over a more meaningful sample of games (30) during this "second season".

 

Meanwhile, the other 18 teams can play out their remaining 30 games (everyone still plays 162 games) under the 40-man expanded roster rule. In the current MLB system, the bottom half of the league already plays out a meaningless schedule

because they are already assured to not make the postseason by game 132 anyway. The only

difference in this case would be that all of their last 30 games would be against

teams that are also eliminated, so they will likely lose some

attendance, but its not incredibly different. I would also advocate interleague

play for these teams all in that month, to maybe

keep some fans in the seats. But back to the teams that still matter...

 

The top two teams from that five week, 30-game second season then play a long series. Maybe as high as to 10 wins, however, allowing their second season results carry over. So if the Cubs and Brewers were playing in the NLCS, but the Cubs beat the Brewers in four of their six second season meetings, the Brewers would have to win eight against the Cubs in the NLCS before the Cubs won six. What this accomplishes is, again, having larger samples determine the better team.

 

I realize that carry over of some of the results might sound odd, but if you think about it, all the carry over games will have taken place in

the past month. Some

of the carry over games could have just happened last week. Therefore, I don't think it would sound so odd in practice.

 

And lastly, a first-to-five game World Series, at the least.

 

I think two, six-team, month long round robins would be very exciting. Think of the Caribbean World Series. Each

game would have ramifications for all the other teams. Even into the

last week, unless the 5th place team is playing the 6th place team,

each game would likely be very important. And if there would be carry over of the results into the LCS, if a team locked up the top spot early in the second season, who they

beat the rest of their games could really matter. Their fans would also

be very invested in the outcome of the battle for 2nd place in the

second season - they'll pull hard for the team they just beat five

times to make the comeback and therefore give them a big leg up in the

LCS.

 

Also, despite the addition of the round robin, we don't lose the tournament tradition, as the final four teams play out the classic

LSC's and World Series format. Best of both worlds.

 

Your thoughts?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I like it just the way it is. There should be five in each division though. I love the Wild Card. The fact that the season is so long, doesn't really help your argument, in my eyes. The length and grueling nature of the season is a reason to add the WC to me. To go through that long of a season, to only let two teams in the playoffs, I don't like that. It keeps more teams in the hunt. The NBA is a joke and lets too many in, I think baseball is in a pretty good spot. The NFL is basically the same, when you consider four of the teams get byes.

 

Making the WC in baseball is not simply being a good 2nd place team, it means you're pretty darn good and have the misfortune of playing behind someone great. The only thing I'd like to see changed is make the divisional series a best of seven, but that's me.

[Ennder]

I'd rather they add another wild card than remove it. The original posters idea seems too complicated to be viable. It is going to be hard to get them to shorten the season by a meaningful amount given the statistical nature and history of the game. The playoffs already go late enough that I don't see them adding teams either to be honest. I think we will see them just stick what we have.

[sbrylski]

The fact that the season is so long, doesn't really help your argument, in my eyes. The length and grueling nature of the season is a reason to add the WC to me. To go through that long of a season, to only let two teams in the playoffs, I don't like that. It keeps more teams in the hunt.

 

Making the WC in baseball is not simply being a good 2nd place team, it means you're pretty darn good and have the misfortune of playing behind someone great. The only thing I'd like to see changed is make the divisional series a best of seven, but that's me.

If the season is so long and grueling, why aren't the results trusted then? Why do we have to give a second chance out to the best non-first? Even if they're the second best team in the league, they lost to the great team fair and square. You can make a case for the other divisional leaders to have a chance to beat that great team, because of the unbalanced scheduling, but I don't see the case for why the 2nd place team should get another chance, other than it's more exciting for the fans. Exciting and fair are mutually exclusive.

So I've said why I believe the longer the season, the less need for a wildcard. You didn't really make an argument for your point either. Why would a longer season require a wildcard?

And I'm not advocating a two team postseason, if you read my plan right. I'm actually expanding it to six, lengthening the postseason, and shifting the first rounds to a round robin instead of tournament style.

Maybe it sounds simpler in this format:

30 Teams - 132 game regular season over 5 months

12 Teams - Two 6-team pool play over 5 weeks

4 Teams - League Championship Series

2 Teams - World Series

[sbrylski]

I'd rather they add another wild card than remove it. The original posters idea seems too complicated to be viable. It is going to be hard to get them to shorten the season by a meaningful amount given the statistical nature and history of the game. The playoffs already go late enough that I don't see them adding teams either to be honest. I think we will see them just stick what we have.

1. I said it wasn't political feasible, this is meant to be a ideological discussion.

2. There's still a set of 162 games that could be deemed the statistical season. Its just that the first five months is under a balanced schedule, and the next month is unbalanced with the best teams playing only each other to best determine the best two teams to play in the LCS.

3. I think it sounds more complicated because I included that provision of carrying over the results. Really its not that messy. Just dividing the top six teams from the other teams for the last month of the season.

[pitchleague]

Let's say San Francisco wins the NL West with an 83-79 record, while the Mets win the East at 88-74. Meanwhile, the NL Central Champs are the Cardinals at 112-50 and the Brewers finish second in the division at 111-51. Oh, and the Brewers went 6-0 against the Giants, outscoring them 46-3 in the six games.

 

You're saying that Milwaukee doesn't deserve a spot in the playoffs?

 

 

 

I understand trying to make the regular season more meaningful as well as the post-season, but a one-month "second season" would only spark interest in those six cities, whereas the other 24 teams and their fans wouldn't give a rat's rear end for the entire month of September. They would completely move on to football (as opposed to semi-moving to football as they do now.) I think that would practically kill baseball and the importance (in culture) of the World Series.

 

I'm not saying your idea is bad, per say. I wouldn't vote for it, though, if I was a voting member of the committee that decides these kind of things.

[owbc]

I think a few simple fixes would make things better.

 

1. Wildcard round becomes best of 7

2. All extra off days are removed in playoff series. Series are 2-3-2, with 2 days off for travel. One additional day off is allotted between series.

 

Baseball's simplicity is what makes it great. I would be opposed to anything that allows additional complexity to the postseason.

[sbrylski]

1) Let's say San Francisco wins the NL West with an 83-79 record, while the Mets win the East at 88-74. Meanwhile, the NL Central Champs are the Cardinals at 112-50 and the Brewers finish second in the division at 111-51. Oh, and the Brewers went 6-0 against the Giants, outscoring them 46-3 in the six games.

 

You're saying that Milwaukee doesn't deserve a spot in the playoffs?

 

 

2) I understand trying to make the regular season more meaningful as well as the post-season, but a one-month "second season" would only spark interest in those six cities, whereas the other 24 teams and their fans wouldn't give a rat's rear end for the entire month of September. They would completely move on to football (as opposed to semi-moving to football as they do now.) I think that would practically kill baseball and the importance (in culture) of the World Series.

 

I'm not saying your idea is bad, per say. I wouldn't vote for it, though, if I was a voting member of the committee that decides these kind of things.

1) Yes, I do not think the Brewers should go to the playoffs. If the Brewers had the same schedule as the Cardinals, but a different schedule than the Giants, it is clear to me that the Cardinals deserve to be in the playoffs over the Brewers, but it is not clear that the Brewers deserve to be in the playoffs over the Giants - that's my point, six games during the regular season don't really say that much, I want to use large and equal samples.

 

It's not even clear the Cardinals are the better team than the Giants. Given we are talking in extremes, what if the Cubs, Pirates, Astros, and Reds are all 30-132, but every team in the NL West has a winning record. Now is it clear cut to you?

 

But note that not only did I say I don't like the wildcard, but I don't like divisions and unbalanced schedules either. It doesn't help competitive balance or fairness - I believe its actually unfair. In fact, I'll go as far to say its complicated (because its difficult to compare records across divisions and know who really is the best four teams) but not objectionable because its the status quo and known, whereas my suggestion is objectionable just because its different. (This last line here is in response to the "too complex" comments by Ennder and obsessedwithbrewcrew.)

 

 

2) You read it wrong - the top six from each league form an AL and NL pool. So there are 12 cities that are still fighting it out in September, and 18 that are playing out a meaningless month. And as I said in the lead post, this really isn't that different than it is in the current system. If we go to CoolStandings.com and look at the 2009 standings as of September 1st, these are each team's odds of making the postseason:

 

Yankees - 99.8%

Cardinals - 99.1%

Dodgers - 97.9%

Phillies - 97.7%

Red Sox - 88.2%

Angels - 86.3%

Tigers - 67.8%

Rockies - 55.4%

Twins - 28.9%

Giants - 26.1%

Rangers - 25.3%

Braves - 18.7%

Rays - 6.3%

Everyone else below 5%, 14 teams at 0.1% or lower.

 

That's 13 teams above 5%, and the Rays can still barely be considered alive. So what's any different? In my proposal, you only have 12 teams in the race at September 1st as well. In fact, I'm able to argue my system produces more meaningful games around the league, because those top four teams are pretty much guaranteed playoff spots and would be playing meaningless games during September as well.

 

EDITS: Grammar and a line or two of clarification.

[logan82]

Four teams per league simply works better for playoffs. Otherwise you have a team off for a week before playing again. You would have to go to a two or four division league in each league to make the playoffs fair.

[Invader3K]

The problem with bashing the Wild Card is it ignores the fact that the divisions are unbalanced to begin with (which you did acknowledge). Saying "You have 162 games to win your division!", just ignores the basic layout of the leagues, and to be honest, just feels like something the old "traditionalists" would say without any solid reasoning behind it. I have no problem with the Wild Card, and in fact wouldn't mind if they added two more Wild Card teams to the post-season...they could have each WC team from their league play a short "shoot out" series.

 

I think your plan is just way too radical to work, sybrilski. I give you points for effort, though.

[Flood Pants]

A Brewers fan who hates the wild card. Fascinating. We owe a ton of excitement and optimism to the wild card. Do you remember who won the NL Central two seasons ago? It wasn't the Brewers.

[jhart05]

I don't know. I think adding the Wild Card was one of the best rule changes MLB has ever done.

 

What they should do is start the season earlier and extend the Wild Card round to 7 games.

[TooLiveBrew]

A Brewers fan who hates the wild card. Fascinating. We owe a ton of excitement and optimism to the wild card. Do you remember who won the NL Central two seasons ago? It wasn't the Brewers.

Why shouldn't he be allowed to dislike the system? Should his own team's results come between what he thinks is best? I think it's a nice display of objectivity, personally.

[razzzorsharp]

To determine a true champion, there should be no wildcard, playoffs, or world series. It should just be the team with the bext record after 162 games. Takes all the postseason luck out of it.

 

It would also be as anticlimactic, in most years, as any sport could be.

[Invader3K]

Actually, if you really want to even things out, but still retain a playoff system, get rid of the leagues and divisions completely. Have every team play every other team at least once during the season. Implement the DH across all MLB. Then just take the 8 teams with the best records, regardless of geographic location, and pair them up in the playoffs (1st seed vs 8th, etc).

[sbrylski]

Given its my thread, I'll address all the points...

 

The problem with bashing the Wild Card is it ignores the fact that the divisions are unbalanced to begin with (which you did acknowledge). Saying "You have 162 games to win your division!", just ignores the basic layout of the leagues, and to be honest, just feels like something the old "traditionalists" would say without any solid reasoning behind it.

 

I thought I laid out my reasoning. I can bash the wildcard because of the uneven divisions and unbalanced schedule - 2nd place teams can't be easily compared anymore because they had different competition. That's why the wildcard isn't a fair system and irks me, not because its traditional to not have it.

 

A Brewers fan who hates the wild card. Fascinating. We owe a ton of excitement and optimism to the wild card. Do you remember who won the NL Central two seasons ago? It wasn't the Brewers.

 

As I said in the lead post, excitement and fairness aren't mutually exclusive. We can devise a fair system that retains exciting baseball and a postseason. The Brewers could play just as exciting baseball under either system.

 

The system I outlined above may be even more exciting - there's a postseason run in August instead of September, and then a month long set of very meaningful games if you finish in the top six during the "regular" season. Gradually narrowing down the number of teams (30 to 12 to 4 to 2 to 1) makes each stretch of the season more exciting because the gratification for winning comes sooner.

 

To determine a true champion, there should be no wildcard, playoffs, or world series. It should just be the team with the bext record after 162 games. Takes all the postseason luck out of it.

 

It would also be as anticlimactic, in most years, as any sport could be.

 

I pretty much addressed this in paragraphs #3 and #4 of the lead post.

 

Actually, if you really want to even things out, but still retain a playoff system, get rid of the leagues and divisions completely. Have every team play every other team at least once during the season. Implement the DH across all MLB. Then just take the 8 teams with the best records, regardless of geographic location, and pair them up in the playoffs (1st seed vs 8th, etc).

 

But again, why doesn't the regular season decide the winner then? A 5 or 7 game series will end up trumping the past 162 games, just like our current system.

 

Under my proposal at the top, it would be quite tough for a team like the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals, barely above .500 playing most of their games within a weak division, to first make the second season, be top two over that month, win a long series over the other top NL team, and then win the World Series.

 

I think my system is exciting, fair, and does a better job of advancing the best teams.

[dadofandrew]

Financially, it is an impossibility to go down to 132 games. The details are moot.

[carniesandrubes]

It would also be a logistic nightmare to quickly schedule those last 30 games as far as travel, stadium use (for teams that share with NFL for example), etc... You likely wouldn't know for sure which teams would be in the top 12 and bottom 18 until days before the "second season" would start. There is a reason the full 162-game schedule is finalized months in advance.

[Mr QL]

Ugh, no offense but this is a terrible idea. The only thing they need to change is to have less days off. There's a postseason for a reason and if you can't win it then, you don't deserve to be champions.

[sbrylski]

Financially, it is an impossibility to go down to 132 games. The details are moot.

 

Everyone still plays 162 games.

 

It would also be a logistic nightmare to quickly schedule those last 30 games as far as travel, stadium use (for teams that share with NFL for example), etc... You likely wouldn't know for sure which teams would be in the top 12 and bottom 18 until days before the "second season" would start. There is a reason the full 162-game schedule is finalized months in advance.

 

Great point. Maybe two-three off days would help, and the first half of the teams statistically eliminated could schedule homes games for that first week of September, so at least the time and locations of the games being played are determined in advance. But logistics nightmare is a good term for this.

 

Ugh, no offense but this is a terrible idea.

 

Why? I think the initial reaction to it is just because its different. At least part of it. The best I can get out of people is "they wouldn't do that."

[dadofandrew]

I did not see that all teams played the extra 30 games, but with the playoffs going on, the others are more like exhibitions. Plus, if they are not scheduled 'til a few weeks before, no one will attend.

[UndraftedFA]

I guess I am a person that always liked that baseball doesn't send half the league to the playoffs. I don't think the wild card is too bad. One thing I always thought of was a best of 6 first round series. The division winner needs 3 wins to advance to the next round while the wild card team needs 4 wins. The thing I don't like about that idea is when the wild card is a superior team to the division winner.

[kilgore37]

I'd rather see them got to 2 division NL east and west and AL east and west. Top 2 from each get in. First from the NL east plays the #2 from the NL west and so on. I think less bad teams or at least teams with poor records would sneak in.

[Invader3K]

I'd rather see them got to 2 division NL east and west and AL east and west. Top 2 from each get in. First from the NL east plays the #2 from the NL west and so on. I think less bad teams or at least teams with poor records would sneak in.

Hmmm...that is actually not a bad idea. It would finally end the unbalanced divisions, at least.

 

NL East

-Mets

-Phillies

-Nationals

-Pirates

-Braves

-Marlins

-Reds

-Brewers

 

NL West

-Cubs

-Cardinals

-Astros

-Rockies

-Diamondbacks

-Dodgers

-Padres

-Giants

 

AL East

-Blue Jays

-Yankees

-Red Sox

-Orioles

-Rays

-Indians

-Tigers

 

AL West

-White Sox

-Twins

-Royals

-Rangers

-Angels

-Athletics

-Mariners

 

The problem is that some of the Midwest teams will have extra traveling, but overall I don't think this would be a bad layout. The 8th team in the new NL East is debatable, but I figure MLB wouldn't want to break up the traditional Cubs/Cardinals rivalry.

[sbrylski]

Just to sound not crazy, as I probably did for most of this thread to some of you - I do agree that going back to two divisions is a realistic proposal that I think is better than the current setup and would support. Doesn't really solve any of the root flaws I see in the status quo, but bigger divisions help.