MLB Playoff Expansion

[Vgmastr]

Don't see this proposal happening, but I do think they'll expand the postseason field to six teams per league once they add two more teams.

 

This. Once you have 32 teams go to two divisions of eight in each league. Two division winners and four wild cards, resulting in two wild card games in each league.

[jerichoholicninja]

Worst thing for MLB I've ever heard. Robby and Adam Silver must be having a contest to see who can come up with the stupidest ideas for their leagues.

[bill hAll Star]

I’m typically the last person to complain about tanking but in general, do you guys enjoy the years where the Brewers punt from day 1? And we’re lucky to rarely do it over the past 15 years.

 

It’s good that teams right now are smart enough to know that they are only likely winning 75 and they tank from the start...but wouldn’t it be fun to have only 5-10 teams fully tanking or not trying instead of 15? And then some of those middling teams also won’t be feeding all star deadline deals to the juggernauts as much, either.

[RollieTime]

Manfred sucks. That is all.

 

Once again, he tries his best to destroy the game of baseball.

 

I know it’s been discussed in the past, but I always thought that players wouldn’t want a bunch of time off after being used to playing almost every single day and then needing to play in the biggest games of the season while now being “out of sync” in a way. Isn’t that the reason the Wild Card round is only one game and not a series of 3 games? If Manfred is now fine having top seeds sit out a round, then just turn the Wild Card round into a 3 game series, with no days off between the games, and the other 3 teams all get to rest.

 

Instead of adding more teams to the postseason, I would much rather see a Wild Card series implemented. I also wouldn’t have an issue with having the top seed getting to pick their opponent after the Wild Card game as I think that would be an interesting idea. But expanding to 7 teams is just watering down the entire regular season. You can’t be letting half of the league into the postseason.

[brewcrewdue80]

I was all ready and set to argue that the expanded wild card teams would eliminate a Division winner having less wins over a more deserving wild card team. But the last time that was true was 2012 when Tampa had 90wins over a Detroit Division winning 88wins. 2008 seen the Dodger win 84 games to win the division while 4 teams had better records, 3 which didn't make playoffs. 2012 was when they implemented the two team wild card matchup.

 

Maybe MLB is setting up a softer version to prepare for a 4 Division League after a 2 Team Expansion and then set up 3 wildcards to face 3 division winners. Followed with the typical Division Series/Champ Series/World Series. Though I think that form would be awful as essentially Division winners are forced to likely play a team who finished 2nd in their division to them negating the value on the regular season.

[Oxy]

Manfred sucks. That is all.

 

Once again, he tries his best to destroy the game of baseball.

 

I know it’s been discussed in the past, but I always thought that players wouldn’t want a bunch of time off after being used to playing almost every single day and then needing to play in the biggest games of the season while now being “out of sync” in a way. Isn’t that the reason the Wild Card round is only one game and not a series of 3 games? If Manfred is now fine having top seeds sit out a round, then just turn the Wild Card round into a 3 game series, with no days off between the games, and the other 3 teams all get to rest.

 

Instead of adding more teams to the postseason, I would much rather see a Wild Card series implemented. I also wouldn’t have an issue with having the top seed getting to pick their opponent after the Wild Card game as I think that would be an interesting idea. But expanding to 7 teams is just watering down the entire regular season. You can’t be letting half of the league into the postseason.

 

This is all true and correct...as evidenced by the NBA and NHL where the regular season is mostly exhibition. That problem can be amended with a better playoff format though, with huge incentives for getting higher seeds.

 

Giving more teams hope and having more meaningful games in September is a good thing, as long as those teams at the top are still playing to win a pennant and get some sort of advantageous seed in the playoffs.

[Eye Black]

Craig Calcaterra took a look at how this proposed system would have changed the postseason since 2014...

 

Under the proposed system:

 

2014: two 79-win teams tie for postseason spot

2015: two 83-win teams make postseason

2016: a 79-win team makes postseason

2017: three 80-win teams tie for postseason

2018: three 82-win teams tie for postseason

2019: an 84-win team makes postseason

 

 

I think one of the biggest issues with expanding the playoffs in MLB is the fact that unlike the NFL or NBA, game results are much less indicative of who the actual best teams are over shorter samples. If you let sub-.500 teams in the playoffs you will absolutely have years when those mediocre teams make, and even win, the World Series. The randomness of baseball results will cause even less certainty than we have now in determining the actual best teams.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I must be crazy because I love the idea exactly as its proposed.

 

Don't understand the tears shed for the teams playing the road games. For 2 of the 3 of them, they'd be playing zero playoff games under the current format. And for the 3rd, they're currently playing one road game in the wild card round. This system does reward 3 teams in the WC round with two guaranteed home playoff games, with the potential for a 3rd. And no travel days so they can crank this out just like a traditional 3 game series right after the regular season wraps up. It also gives all teams a much fairer chance to recover from one playoff loss. There's no denying that the "pick your opponent" show will make great TV. And finally, the top seed in each league will still take the field around the same time they do now with the big advantage of lining up their rotation on full rest. Perhaps most importantly, more fan bases will be engaged in September.

 

This seems like something everyone will rip on until it's put in play for the first time and everyone ends up loving it.

[bill hAll Star]

This seems like something everyone will rip on until it's put in play for the first time and everyone ends up loving it.

 

Yeah...so I am really kinda indifferent/don't mind a lot of it. The traditionalist in me feels like I will miss the selective playoffs and a team getting rewarded with a home playoff game, etc.

 

But this will help address tanking, which again, I am not hugely against, but there are teams that probably will draw 12k fans on their 2nd home game of the season because they knew they were going to max out at 72 wins so they just tanked from the start.

 

But the biggest takeaway from me is I do not see a single reply on twitter feigning any sort of support. People are going to hate it because they've already decided they hate everything Manfred will try. Alright, well if you don't like it and love baseball "the way it is and Rob keeps trying to change it," please tune into a Tigers/Orioles game in August this year to help the MLB's bottom line. Of course those may be two of the five or so teams that will outright tank no matter the playoff format, but there will be intrigue for over half of the league all the way until the end of the season under this format instead of 2/3 of the league packing it in after July or so.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I enjoy the slow burn of the MLB regular season. That it's normal for teams to go 18-25 and finish 92-70. That you can hold first place for 4 months and miss the playoffs. These kinds of changes are going to really mess that up. I feel like they've got it exactly right with the 5 teams and play-in game. The regular season is still frequently coming down to the last weekend and it still feels like a big achievement just to get in.

 

I also don't really buy in to this anti-tanking argument re: late season game Tigers vs. Orioles. This isn't going to change that one iota. The NBA allows over half the league in and has the worst tanking practices of any major sport. The NFL has a nice playoff format by most people's measure and all the teams with franchise QBs basically dominate post-season appearances. You can pick out 7-8 teams that almost always suck.

[bill hAll Star]

I enjoy the slow burn of the MLB regular season. That it's normal for teams to go 18-25 and finish 92-70. That you can hold first place for 4 months and miss the playoffs. These kinds of changes are going to really mess that up. I feel like they've got it exactly right with the 5 teams and play-in game. The regular season is still frequently coming down to the last weekend and it still feels like a big achievement just to get in.

 

I also don't really buy in to this anti-tanking argument re: late season game Tigers vs. Orioles. This isn't going to change that one iota. The NBA allows over half the league in and has the worst tanking practices of any major sport. The NFL has a nice playoff format by most people's measure and all the teams with franchise QBs basically dominate post-season appearances. You can pick out 7-8 teams that almost always suck.

 

The NBA is so, so, so different. Arguments where the NBA is brought up should be immediately thrown out. There is essentially zero chance for an 8 seed to win the title. Like literally zero unless it's some team with a superstar that was hurt for half the season.

 

You also need to tank because a top 5 pick can change the franchise immediately in the NBA.

 

We've seen the 4 or 5 seed win how many times recently in the MLB? A 6 or 7 seed could absolutely win it.

 

My example wasn't great because there will still be the bottom 5 or so teams cutting corners and tanking in the majors. The Orioles were so bad they probably still would.

 

How about the Mariners? We all knew they were a bit of a fluke but they started out the season on fire, began to fall back to earth, and sold off their entire roster.

 

It's hard to accurately project last season's standings on to this thing because so many of these teams ripped their lineups apart in July and only won ~70 games. Those teams absolutely could've won 78-80 and kept fans in it for the whole season. Instead, they sold off their lineup to contenders.

 

And to me, it's more of the preseason thing. Maybe teams with OK outlooks would be more interested in adding during the offseason. Instead, they sit on their hands knowing that their window is still 2 years away.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

MLB is allowing 1/3 of the league in the playoffs as it is so I don't get this argument I keep seeing that they need to be like the other leagues and make it easier. Why are we trying to make that 50% so that everyone has a chance? It's the playoffs. It should be hard. You should not be rewarded for being 81-81 by getting a chance at the same tournament as teams winning 95 games. My biggest gripe with the current system is a team like the '18 Cubs winning 94 games and possibly drawing some .500 WC team and losing.

 

At least now that's rare. I'm not really jazzed about reform that makes it an annual thing.

[bill hAll Star]

MLB is allowing 1/3 of the league in the playoffs as it is so I don't get this argument I keep seeing that they need to be like the other leagues and make it easier. Why are we trying to make that 50% so that everyone has a chance? It's the playoffs. It should be hard. You should not be rewarded for being 81-81 by getting a chance at the same tournament as teams winning 95 games. My biggest gripe with the current system is a team like the '18 Cubs winning 94 games and possibly drawing some .500 WC team and losing.

 

At least now that's rare. I'm not really jazzed about reform that makes it an annual thing.

 

There's a give and take, here. I don't like that part sometimes, either.

 

The NFL just had its best regular season team lose to a 9-7 Wild Card. A few years ago, the top seed in the NCAA lost to a 16 seed. Sometimes that feels illegitimate, but it's also part of the game's lore.

 

The MLB playoffs are to most's liking in fairness right now and yet the Dodgers still have not won a title. So it's so fluky already that it probably doesn't reward the best team over the course of time.

 

But more importantly, I would probably trade off a time or two where a 95 win team loses 2/3 to an 81 team for all of the times that you could watch 5-10 fun games per day in August and September that all play into playoff seeding (which now matters) and entry instead of 2-3. Especially if I'm a fan of a team that generally is stuck at the mid-market 81 win level anyways.

 

I have liked the NBA in the past a bit more, but even if I was a bit more into it right now, you couldn't convince me to care about any of the games from now until April. They mean literally nothing. Bucks are the #1 seed in the East, Lakers probably are in the West. Maybe a 2 or 3 seed will pull an upset in May, but absolutely nothing is of interest right now if you just care about teams that could win the championship trying to make the playoffs.

[jjgott]

Dallas Braden

@DALLASBRADEN209 11m

Half the league in the postseason doesn’t generate more hope. That’s cute though. It DOES generate potential POSTSEASON revenue for teams that haven’t spent $ to be competitive. This is LOWERING THE BAR. Just a mechanism to allow the tanking to be veiled as being competitive.

 

I'm more or less in Dallas Braden's camp on the proposed expansion. The Brewers already feel like they can significantly cut payroll this year and still have an outside shot at the 2nd wild card. Imagine this offseason knowing we only had to win ~ 81 games to get into the postseason. Would we have needed to sign any free agents? Put the pressure on the owners to actually invest in a winning product if they want to get to the postseason and make that postseason $$$. Reward teams for actually putting together a team that can withstand the entirety of a 162 game season. If anything we should go back to just 4 playoff teams (yes I know this means the Brewers would not have made it last year).

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The NFL is going to have 9/10 win teams doing crazy stuff because the season is so short and the nature of the game dictates that. There is really not much difference between 9 and 11 wins especially if any key players have been injured. If I'm looking at both Giants teams that won the Super Bowl, that's exactly what happened with big injuries costing both teams several wins. Same thing with the '10 Packers where Rodgers missed two games they lost. Those wild card teams are never bad, they're typically good teams that came together late or had injuries. The bad ones almost always get crushed by good ones.

 

But one of the reasons MLB gets away with having a "tough" playoff qualification is the idea that over 162 the cream has enough time to rise. That's less true in football. It's really hard to claim after 162 games that you deserve to be in the playoffs if you couldn't manage being one of the top 5 teams. I suspect that others are correct and a less intense change will be made. But IMO they've struck a perfect balance right now between the lunacy of the old days where one league champion made the "playoffs" and the NBA system of "who cares until the conference semis."

[bill hAll Star]

Dallas Braden

@DALLASBRADEN209 11m

Half the league in the postseason doesn’t generate more hope. That’s cute though. It DOES generate potential POSTSEASON revenue for teams that haven’t spent $ to be competitive. This is LOWERING THE BAR. Just a mechanism to allow the tanking to be veiled as being competitive.

 

I'm more or less in Dallas Braden's camp on the proposed expansion. The Brewers already feel like they can significantly cut payroll this year and still have an outside shot at the 2nd wild card. Imagine this offseason knowing we only had to win ~ 81 games to get into the postseason. Would we have needed to sign any free agents? Put the pressure on the owners to actually invest in a winning product if they want to get to the postseason and make that postseason $$$. Reward teams for actually putting together a team that can withstand the entirety of a 162 game season. If anything we should go back to just 4 playoff teams (yes I know this means the Brewers would not have made it last year).

 

I am somewhat on board with what Braden is saying. Of course they need a salary cap/floor to combat this. The luxury tax is helping smooth things out a little bit at the top but it's still way too favorable to the large markets.

 

But say that salary cap change is off the table. What is Braden's solution? It's cute to say that tanking teams get to still make the playoffs, but give me that 1000 times out of 1000 over tanking/middling teams being completely done by July 20, and realistically, fans and GMs know that they're done before it even starts.

[JosephC]

Playoffs are simply a money-making gimmick by sports leagues and that's been obvious for a long time. All leagues will eventually get to the point where over half the teams are in the playoffs because it will keep more markets interested deeper into the season which makes more money. It also gives fans of mediocre teams the impression that the product they are getting is better than it really is because "we are in the playoff race every year" when that actually means they likely drift between the 12th and 22nd best team in the league which is clearly nothing special. Note that last year the teams that tied for the 14th best record in the league were the Red Sox and Cubs, so the networks are likely screaming for more playoff teams to catch a big market team or two that has disappointing seasons. Basically expand the playoff and there is no way the league can lose because it's more money, money, money and the general public will never figure out that the more playoff teams are included the more and more meaningless the regular season becomes.

 

But it's all about determining a true champion. Don't make me laugh.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Does that really work? Because there have been years the Bucks make the playoffs as an 8 and absolutely nobody cares. I guess people will take a chance to see LeBron play a couple games but I remember a season against the Pistons where I was able to get lower bowl seats for like $15. I was in high school and sitting with Milwaukee's elite for the playoffs because nobody gave a crap.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Love the idea of having a 3-game series all at the higher seed’s ballpark in the wild card round. The lower seed already doesn’t get a home game, so at least make it a series instead of one game.

 

Everything else I hate.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Does that really work? Because there have been years the Bucks make the playoffs as an 8 and absolutely nobody cares. I guess people will take a chance to see LeBron play a couple games but I remember a season against the Pistons where I was able to get lower bowl seats for like $15. I was in high school and sitting with Milwaukee's elite for the playoffs because nobody gave a crap.

 

Big difference in MLB vs NBA.

 

In the NBA, the last team in has literally 0% chance of winning the title.

 

In MLB, the last team in has won the title multiple times. And as mentioned, that’s an argument against expanding the MLB playoffs. You inevitably will eventually have some .500 or even sub-.500 teams advance to and even win the World Series

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Well yeah, but I was referring to the playoffs being a money-making gimmick. Nobody takes the first round of the NBA playoffs even remotely seriously. They could get rid of the first round tomorrow and nobody would care. There are no fans legitimately thinking their 38-42 team is "in the playoff hunt."

 

The entire existence of professional sports is a "money-making gimmick." You could say that about any form of entertainment, we are not solving world hunger here.

[KeithStone53151]

A couple side effects of this that I haven't seen posted yet.

 

More playoff teams means less team dumping players and loading up super teams. I get a bit frustrated that 16 teams trade off everything of value at the deadline to the other 14 teams. I think this idea along with getting rid of the August trade window will make the last couple months of the season much more competitive.

 

More teams playing competitive baseball also leads to more tie potentials. What happens if 2 teams from a division AND another wildcard team all tie? Add to that, two other teams tie for the 7th best record. This isn't a super far-fetched scenario either. We've dealt with pretty significant tie issues the last couple years, and would get that much more confusing in this type of scenario. If enacted, I think you'd have to set tiebreaker criteria like the NFL and avoid playing games to break ties. If they are solely going for good TV, maybe put the coin toss tiebreaker up higher and televise that. If Vegas is calling the shots, that's what would happen.

 

As it stands, the only part I really don't like is the picking of opponents. It's just not a good idea. I do like the full home field advantage thing, I could even be talked into 27 man rosters and 3 games in 2 days to streamline this...but no way would the players union go for that. I really like the 3 game series versus 1 game. A 1 game winner take all made the games not like a real game. Where we had to face Scherzer, Strasburg, and Corbin all in one game. That's not really in the nature of how baseball works, even in the playoffs. I'm neutral on the expansion of playoff teams, but I think 6 is plenty if you do it. You can still do a quick 3 game series in the same manner and allow for 2 teams to have byes. 10 teams is 33% playoffs, 12 is 40%, 14 is 47%. 33% seems about right to me. 40% is fine, 47% just seems like way too much. Half of teams making the playoffs. The only teams not making it are the true trash teams.

 

My guess on this, baseball wasn't happy that the Cubs and Red Sox got edged out...and want to provide them a better chance to get in on their marginal years. With their money, it will be rare for teams like that to win 70ish games or less. They'd probably make the playoffs 9 out of 10 years if 47% of teams make it.

[bill hAll Star]

Well yeah, but I was referring to the playoffs being a money-making gimmick. Nobody takes the first round of the NBA playoffs even remotely seriously. They could get rid of the first round tomorrow and nobody would care. There are no fans legitimately thinking their 38-42 team is "in the playoff hunt."

 

The entire existence of professional sports is a "money-making gimmick." You could say that about any form of entertainment, we are not solving world hunger here.

 

It's another game that they can fill up a stadium and put the game on TV.

 

I'd agree that nobody cares (as we've discussed NBA vs. MLB on this thread) as the Bucks line up for said 8 seed and even most of the games as said 8 seed...but it makes the owners more money.

[KeithStone53151]

Well yeah, but I was referring to the playoffs being a money-making gimmick. Nobody takes the first round of the NBA playoffs even remotely seriously. They could get rid of the first round tomorrow and nobody would care. There are no fans legitimately thinking their 38-42 team is "in the playoff hunt."

 

The entire existence of professional sports is a "money-making gimmick." You could say that about any form of entertainment, we are not solving world hunger here.

 

It's another game that they can fill up a stadium and put the game on TV.

 

I'd agree that nobody cares (as we've discussed NBA vs. MLB on this thread) as the Bucks line up for said 8 seed and even most of the games as said 8 seed...but it makes the owners more money.

 

The Bucks are a weird example here, we could probably bench our starting 5 and beat the 8 seed consistently. This team is historically good, the 1 seed usually isn't quite as dominant as the Bucks are. Probably at least half the time, the 8 seed wins at least 1 game. Plus, the 8 seed in any case is probably feeling some David vs Goliath...and that team probably cares to a decent degree about the outside chance they could take down Goliath.

[RollieTime]

Craig Calcaterra took a look at how this proposed system would have changed the postseason since 2014...

 

Under the proposed system:

 

2014: two 79-win teams tie for postseason spot

2015: two 83-win teams make postseason

2016: a 79-win team makes postseason

2017: three 80-win teams tie for postseason

2018: three 82-win teams tie for postseason

2019: an 84-win team makes postseason

 

 

I think one of the biggest issues with expanding the playoffs in MLB is the fact that unlike the NFL or NBA, game results are much less indicative of who the actual best teams are over shorter samples. If you let sub-.500 teams in the playoffs you will absolutely have years when those mediocre teams make, and even win, the World Series. The randomness of baseball results will cause even less certainty than we have now in determining the actual best teams.

 

This is exactly why I wouldn’t like the new format. Having half the league make it into the postseason and having sub .500 teams make it as well? It’s tough to make the postseason in baseball. That’s why it’s so exciting when you do make it in. The thrill of the MLB postseason could quite possibly lose its luster until the championship series just like the NBA if they go this route. It does give worse teams a chance to knock off a better team because of the randomness of baseball, but making the postseason itself, in my opinion, would become much less of an achievement. You would only need to strive for 80 wins and have a real shot of making it in.

 

It would be a given that certain teams would make it in for 20+ years in a row. Heck, the Brewers could make it 7-10 years in a row no problem if that’s all you need.

 

This all comes down to money and adding more playoff revenue instead of the betterment of the game. Letting 79 win teams make the postseason and being rewarded the chance to win a championship from their “performance” during the regular season is gross all the way around.