MLB Playoffs to expand in 2012 (Now official; see post 61)

[TooLiveBrew]

I don't understand the argument that this diminishes the 162-game season.

I said Selig's postseason 'tweaks' in general have diminished the regular season, not that this specific change makes a huge impact in that regard. But yes, it does that as well, since the 'last team in' isn't really necessarily the last team in anymore. Think it would've been fun if the '08 Brewers would've had to play a one-game elimination 'series' after working their butts off & dramatically winning the Wild Card? Me neither.

[RightFieldCoder]

The good news is the reversal of home games in the divisional round only applies to this year I believe. In future years they will have more flexibility in scheduling to revery back to the higher seed getting the first home games. That being said I am not sure how switching it this year actually saves on travel times.

Because you have to have travel days in the playoffs. The union requires it. 2-3 will get done one day less than 2-2-1.

 

Normal Schedule

Day 1 & 2 - Games 1 & 2

Day 3 - Travel

Day 4 & 5 - Games 3 & 4

Day 6 - Travel

Day 7 - Game 5

 

This Year

Day 1 & 2 - Games 3 & 4 (Away game for "home field advantage" team)

Day 3 - Travel

Day 4, 5, & 6 - Games 1, 2, and 5

 

I hate the idea of a one game playoff game. It's really game 163 (or 16X that year). Are we going to raise a banner for winning the 2nd WC and being trounced in the WC game? Can we really celebrate it?

[BradWI]

No one will look at the 5th team in as a true playoff team. All they've done is made the regular season 1 game longer and made the one game playoff a yearly required event.

 

And seriously, why? Was the end of last season not exciting enough? I remember the final nights being pretty damn good.

 

The 5th team has averaged 89 wins since 1996, so they are pretty good teams still.

 

Last year you had 5 teams fighting for 4 spots. Maybe this year you have 6 teams fighting for 5 spots and it's just as exciting. The situation one year doesn't mean it will be like that every year.

[monty57]

Sounds to me like a way to ensure that the Rays don't keep one of the Yankees/Red Sox out of the playoffs, and a way to keep TV ratings up a little longer in a couple of markets.

 

I dislike the concept of a one-game playoff. I'd hate to see the Brewers make the "playoffs" and only play one game. I'd much rather keep it the way it is. This is all about more revenue.

[RockCoCougars]

Horrible idea. Why did they see the need for this? Oh yeah, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Glennron]

Well, at least it's not as bad as expanding the NCAA tournament to 65 and then 68 teams in recent years.

 

Does anyone know why the 2-3 format for the Divisional rounds is only for 2012 at this point? Something to do with next year's realignment?

[Mike Felder]

The dates for the last game of the 2012 regular season and first game of the 2012 World Series are already set in stone. MLB had to shoehorn in the one-game playoffs without pushing the start of the WS back. Going to the 2-3 format in the Division Series eliminates a travel day and allows them to do that. Next year it won't be an issue, because baseball won't be deciding the number of playoff teams one month before the season and they can plan for the extra games when setting the postseason schedule, so it's back to 2-2-1 in 2013.

[brettac1]

Well, at least it's not as bad as expanding the NCAA tournament to 65 and then 68 teams in recent years.

 

Does anyone know why the 2-3 format for the Divisional rounds is only for 2012 at this point? Something to do with next year's realignment?

I have no problem with the expansion of the NCAA field since that's a single-elimination tournament anyhow. I would have been more in support of this if it were at least a three game playoff, especially in the situations where a team wins the wild card by a mile and still has to "earn" their playoff spot.

[sveumrules]

Have tie-breaking criteria been published yet? Is it possible we'll have multiple one-game playoffs before the actual one-game playoffs?

 

Really curious about this also.

 

I haven't done a ton of digging (googlying?) but I so hope that there is a four or five way tie for divisions/wildcards as karma for MLB pushing this through for no other reason than what RockCo said a couple posts back, massive cash grab. Seriously, just wait one year.

[rickh150]

I don't like the seeding part of the playoffs. Seeding should go by record, in my opinion. The Wild Card entry should not be the automatic #4 seed. Playoff

Scenerio- these teams get in:

 

Yankees 100 wins

Red Sox 97 wins

 

Twins 87 wins

 

Rangers 95 wins

Angels 93 wins

 

Right now in baseball playoffs, Yankees would get # 1, Rangers #2, Twins #3, and Wild card winner, Red Sox or Angels would get #4......... The Yanks would have to play the Red Sox or Angels, even though they have more wins than the Twins.

 

I would leave everything as is, except for the seeding part. I'd make the regular season record carry more weight, seeding everything on record in the NLDS. In my scenerio, the Yanks #1 would be playing the Twins #4 and the Rangers #2 or #3 would be getting home field against the Angels#3 or would not be getting home field against the Red Sox #2.

 

This seems more fair to me. I like how the emphasis has been put on winning your division so you don't have to play in that wild card playoff. Yet, more emphasis is needed on the final record, as well, to decide home field.

[RightFieldCoder]

Let's take your scenario and imagine the Twins have 94 wins. The Yankees would be the only ones who know where they playing Game 1 of the NLDS until the WC game was finished. This would be havoc for the fans and networks.

[monty57]

Take that scenario and imagine that the Tigers have 95 wins (that's more likely than the Twins) and the Angels have 87. There will be a one-game playoff and the 87-win Angels could knock the 97-win Red Sox out. One game, even though they have the 2nd best record in the league and 10 more wins than the Angels.

 

The one-game playoff part is the joke. In one game, the worst team in baseball will often beat the best team in baseball. If there were a way to make it 3-games, then it would be okay, but adding this one-game playoff is a terrible idea. If you can't make something better, then keep it the way it is.

[RockCoCougars]

I think that it's absolutely ridiculous to water down the playoffs even more in the name of the almighty dollar. I realize that the days of chasing the pennant are gone, but this decision was driven by TV money nothing more, nothing less. One of the reasons that I love baseball is that the regular season is long and meaningful. Now, not as much. The other problem that I have with allowing more teams in the baseball playoffs is the fact that in a baseball series, the hot team often will win (see the 2011 Cardinals) as opposed to the better team. In my view, there is a more level playing field in a baseball playoff series, as opposed to say, the NFL or NBA where talent generally trumps momentum.

[JohnBriggs12]

I think that it's absolutely ridiculous to water down the playoffs even more in the name of the almighty dollar. I realize that the days of chasing the pennant are gone, but this decision was driven by TV money nothing more, nothing less. One of the reasons that I love baseball is that the regular season is long and meaningful. Now, not as much. The other problem that I have with allowing more teams in the baseball playoffs is the fact that in a baseball series, the hot team often will win (see the 2011 Cardinals) as opposed to the better team. In my view, there is a more level playing field in a baseball playoff series, as opposed to say, the NFL or NBA where talent generally trumps momentum.

 

At one time they use to play 162 games to eliminate 18 of 20 teams. Sure it was tough as most years your team was out of it by August, but the prize of winning (a World Series berth), was so great, even a faint hope made the season exciting. Besides, baseball for the most part is a spring and summer game anyway. I don't think the sport suffers if all but the fans of the contenders turn their attention to football in September, then gear up to watch one winner take all event between the two best teams in October. October should be reserved for the best. These days, the best teams often don't get to the World Series. So my attention goes to college and pro football and doesn't come back to baseball until the spring. I hated that the Brewers could win 96 games then have to beat a Cardinal team that they proved better than over 162 games because the Cardinals got hot.

[brettac1]

The playoffs aren't really designed for the "best team" to win, they are just to determine a champion.

[topper09er]

but this decision was driven by TV money nothing more, nothing less.

 

This decision is in place as a way to help the lower revenue teams. In reality in the AL you have 12 teams fighting for 2 playoff spots with the Yankees/Red Sox nearly guaranteed to get the other 2. Now you have 3 spots for those 12 teams which helps out a lot. I don't like it because it does not address the real problem which would be solved by revenue sharing but that is a whole different topic.

 

This also makes the regular season more important because if you don't win your division you have the 1 game crap shoot. Previously, especially with regard to the AL East race recently, it was at many times pointless because the division winner and wild card team are equal in the playoffs except for home field advantage. Now winning the division is much more important. There is also the issue of using your ace at the end of the season just to make the playoffs, giving you a disadvantage in the 1 game playoff, and even if you can use your ace in the 1 game playoff you are at a disadvantage in the division series round because the division winner has their ace rested. This makes it harder for a wild card team to win the world series.

[topper09er]

I hated that the Brewers could win 96 games then have to beat a Cardinal team that they proved better than over 162 games because the Cardinals got hot.

 

Tony LaRussa so thoroughly dominated Ron Roenicke with every possible decision and won the series for his less talented team.

[RockCoCougars]

The playoffs aren't really designed for the "best team" to win, they are just to determine a champion.

 

That's the rub. The regular season was originally designed for the best team to have the opportunity to play for a championship. No 'playoffs' were necessary, until the World Series was instituted to determine superiority between the two leagues (yes, I know that mystique is now gone due to interleague play.... that's another rant for another day). According to my count, there have been 10 Wild Card teams (with 5 winners) in the World Series since it was instituted in '94..... nearly a third of all World Series teams. To me, that marginalizes the regular season. I put more stock into 162 games than a short series. Call me a purist, but in my view, a team should at least win their division to have the opportunity to play for a championship.

 

Unfortunately, all these changes are driven by money, not the desire to improve the game.

[topper09er]

 

Unfortunately, all these changes are driven by money, not the desire to improve the game.

 

If we had 30 teams competing for 2 playoff spots that would be terrible. With 16 teams its not so bad. The sport would be far, far worse if more teams didn't have hope. There would no point to being a Brewer fan if there were no playoffs. This is why there are more playoff spots, not because of money. They have playoffs games on during the day, if they were interested in money that would never happen, how many NBA playoff games occur during the day?

 

Also, the playoffs are more exciting from a fan perspective even though they are less "fair". If you wanted a fair system then all 30 teams should play each other an equal number of times and the team with the best record is the winner and there are no playoffs. It is better to have smaller divisions to create rivalries and give more fans hope their team can win the WS. It is great that 5 WC winners have won the WS because most fans can still have WS hope in August, even if it is remote. If we played each team in the league the same number of times we would not hate the cubs any more than the padres, which would suck. We also would have to watch more games starting at late times which is worse for the fans.

[Raw Biz]

 

Unfortunately, all these changes are driven by money, not the desire to improve the game.

 

If we had 30 teams competing for 2 playoff spots that would be terrible. With 16 teams its not so bad. The sport would be far, far worse if more teams didn't have hope. There would no point to being a Brewer fan if there were no playoffs. This is why there are more playoff spots, not because of money. They have playoffs games on during the day, if they were interested in money that would never happen, how many NBA playoff games occur during the day?

 

Also, the playoffs are more exciting from a fan perspective even though they are less "fair". If you wanted a fair system then all 30 teams should play each other an equal number of times and the team with the best record is the winner and there are no playoffs. It is better to have smaller divisions to create rivalries and give more fans hope their team can win the WS. It is great that 5 WC winners have won the WS because most fans can still have WS hope in August, even if it is remote. If we played each team in the league the same number of times we would not hate the cubs any more than the padres, which would suck. We also would have to watch more games starting at late times which is worse for the fans.

 

This sums up everything for me. I don't care about the best team from the regular season winning. If that was the case, why not just give the championship to the team with the best record? It would suck to be a fan of most teams if there were still only 4 teams making the playoffs because most teams would know they have no shot. For me, it's all about making the playoffs and from there, anything can happen. I think the NFL has it best but it's easier to do when you only play 16 games.

[monty57]

This decision is in place as a way to help the lower revenue teams.

 

Maybe that's how it's being sold, but I'd bet the Rays knocking the Red Sox & Yankees out of the playoffs a few times in recent years is a big reason we're getting the extra Wild Card team. Now the Yankees and Red Sox are both almost assured of being in the playoffs every year. That is a dream scenario for MLB, as it brings in the most revenue. This move will also keep more teams in the playoff hunt, and therefore keep ratings up, bringing in more revenue. That may make it more fun for some fans, but it is certainly about the extra revenue. I'd guess the "more fun" factor will last for fans until "their team" gets bounced in a one-game playoff. They will then hate it. If the Yankees end up as the top Wild Card and get bounced by the Royals in one game, this may be a short-lived experiment.

 

If we had 30 teams competing for 2 playoff spots that would be terrible.

 

I agree, but it could easily domino in the other direction and become like the NHL or NBA where half the teams make it and the playoffs take longer than the regular season. There was talk of shortening the season in favor of additional playoff teams, which I don't like. I don't mind the Wild Card, as four teams from each league seems right, and for those who don't like the Wild Card, I guess we could add a couple of teams and have four 4-team divisions in each league with the division winners getting the playoffs. I just don't like the one-game playoff, which is the epitomy of a crap shoot.

 

If we played each team in the league the same number of times we would not hate the cubs any more than the padres, which would suck.

 

Any self-respecting Packer fan will always dislike Chicago teams more than others, even if we never played them :-)

[topper09er]

Any self-respecting Packer fan will always dislike Chicago teams more than others, even if we never played them :-)

 

How do you feel about the White Sox? They are all Bears fans too

[valpocrewsader]

The one-game playoff is the deal breaker for me, I agree with those who think it's terrible. It just feels way too random, and even feels sloppy and poorly thought out. If the non-divisional winner with the best record and the non-divisional winner with the second best record are close to each other in record, they're already in a virtual playoff (albeit against other teams) in the final days of the season. That doesn't need to be improved upon. And if those two teams are not close in their records, they shouldn't be playing a 1-game elimination game that risks knocking out the team with the better record on a single fluke game.

 

Maybe they should consider doing something crazy like spotting one team with as many runs as they have games up on the other team. Too gimmicky and silly for MLB, I suppose, but I think a 1-game playoff is right up there in the gimmick department anyways. Horrible.

[Baldkin]

I love it, because it makes winning the division more valuable. Not having to play that 1 game playoff is huge.

[RockCoCougars]

This also makes the regular season more important because if you don't win your division you have the 1 game crap shoot. Previously, especially with regard to the AL East race recently, it was at many times pointless because the division winner and wild card team are equal in the playoffs except for home field advantage. Now winning the division is much more important.

 

This is a valid point, but I still think that the major factor in this decision is that one game playoffs will draw huge ratings. Huge ratings = $$$$$$$. I agree that this devalues the wild card relative to the division winners, but (not liking the WC to begin with) instead of theoretically having one 88 win WC team, you will have an 88 win WC team plus a 86 win WC team. I think this waters down the playoffs. I also see this move as an attempt to slowly appease the purists. I'd be willing to bet that the next cash grab will be an attempt to shorten the regular season by a week and add another round of playoffs. The networks know that ratings are higher for a playoff game than a regular season game, plus- as they say, 'it will make things more exciting'. The owners know who butters their bread, so I'm fully expecting something like this to go along with expansion to add one more team per league, I'd guess in a decade or so. To me, the Astros move to the A.L. signals that the owners are probably starting to think about expansion again (with the one team per league method that they have used the past few times).