Playoff Changes for 2020 [Latest: 16 team playoff field likely here to stay]

[AKCheesehead]

Assuming that since they are using a best of three first round during a pandemic shortened 60 game season they will do the exact same thing during a regular 162 game season reminds me of this product an old coworker of mine at Initech was working on. It was a mat, with various conclusions on it, that one could jump to.

 

Wonder what ever happened to that guy?

 

 

Looks like Tom hit it big afterall.

[jerichoholicninja]

I guess it comes down why the playoffs exists in the first place? Is it to crown the best team in a given year or to put on games with more "meaning" and therefore charge more for tickets and advertisers and make more money? I think we all know the answer for the league and owners is the latter. I guess the players would fall more in the former category but probably ultimately don't care all that much.

[JosephC]

I guess it comes down why the playoffs exists in the first place? Is it to crown the best team in a given year or to put on games with more "meaning" and therefore charge more for tickets and advertisers and make more money? I think we all know the answer for the league and owners is the latter. I guess the players would fall more in the former category but probably ultimately don't care all that much.

 

Speaking of the players, I wonder if this will turn out to be a bad thing for them. After all, if I own the Yankees, and I know the 8th best team in the AL still makes the playoffs, it would definitely give me more incentive to put more money in my pocket and less money into the player's pocket. And I really don't know why that attitude would be any different in Milwaukee than in New York. Do I see major, across-the-board payroll reductions? No. But could I see big market teams being content to spend 180 million instead of 200 million, and maybe Attanasio telling Sterns we really don't need that extra bullpen arm for another 5 million? Sure. If it averages out to 10 million per team across the league...it might not be that noticeable at first, but that's 300 million less for the players.

 

If this has to go through the union, the players should demand they get a fixed percentage of any revenue generated by expanded playoffs. If the owners can just push it through now, next CBA the union should insist they go back to the old playoff system or they get a fixed percentage of playoff revenue. And I'm not talking about the small bonus the players in the post-season receive. I'm talking about what would probably be some pretty big chunks of cash that the MLBPA can distribute to players across the league.

[JimH5]

As if 162 regular season games aren't already meaningless.

 

This will make September baseball as unimportant as the last 3 weeks of the NBA regular season.

 

The only teams playing with urgency will be the mediocre .500 teams trying for the last playoff spot.

 

I like the 7 inning doubleheaders, but really don't like this.

[Lathund]

Speaking of the players, I wonder if this will turn out to be a bad thing for them. After all, if I own the Yankees, and I know the 8th best team in the AL still makes the playoffs, it would definitely give me more incentive to put more money in my pocket and less money into the player's pocket. And I really don't know why that attitude would be any different in Milwaukee than in New York. Do I see major, across-the-board payroll reductions? No. But could I see big market teams being content to spend 180 million instead of 200 million, and maybe Attanasio telling Sterns we really don't need that extra bullpen arm for another 5 million? Sure. If it averages out to 10 million per team across the league...it might not be that noticeable at first, but that's 300 million less for the players.

 

Players have been against the expanded playoffs for just that reason. Which I think they're right to. Playoffs are a crapshoot already, but they're hard to qualify for so you have to put out a good team just to be able to take part in the crapshoot. Making playoffs both even more of a crapshoot and also easier to get into, and yeah owners will start pocketing more money. And the union does have to approve it, the owners can't force it through on their own.

[Eye Black]

If you’re interested here is a look back at the teams that would have been the 8th seed in both leagues over the last 20+ years (go 2007 Brewers!)...

 

Baseball America “Losers Welcome: Teams Below .500 Would Frequently Make A 16-Team Postseason”

[Eye Black]

I’m really torn on this overall. I think it will increase interest in the playoffs, but it’s probably moving away from the best way to crown a true champion in the sport.

 

Baseball can’t be compared to basketball because the true talent best team wins much more often in basketball. Baseball over a three game series is a truly random outcome, there will be plenty of near .500 teams that knock off a 100-win division champion in the first round.

 

The thing that is interesting to me about this is the worst place to be in baseball historically has been in the middle-of-the-pack. Baseball has mostly rewarded teams that were very good and very bad. This completely changes that dynamic.

 

I do think for those of us that love an active trade deadline we are probably less likely to see the best teams pull off blockbuster moves to “go for it” because of the increase in the randomness of possible outcomes.

[JosephC]

Can't wait to see the "2023 NL 7th place Champion!" t-shirts that Attanasio will be trying to sell us a few years from now.

[adambr2]

Can't wait to see the "2023 NL 7th place Champion!" t-shirts that Attanasio will be trying to sell us a few years from now.

 

 

That's going to be one hilarious banner hanging in left field.

[adambr2]

One thing I hope is here to stay is 7 inning doubleheaders. Those are great. More baseball and shorter games.

 

I'd love to build them into the regular schedule each year, and maybe have each team play one every other Saturday. Just doing that would build 12 more days off for each team into the season which i bet players would love.

[pacopete4]

I don't want Saturday unless they commit to having Friday and Sunday games. I enjoy weekend baseball too much to lose it. If anything, Sunday would be a great day for a double header which would allow Monday's to be an off day for guys to re-coop. But yes, I agree and have stated in before that I love the 2-7's throughout the year. It brings a different strategy to the season and the games move quickly and are exciting. That and the DH to the NL would be great to have stay in the game.

[MrTPlush]

Ideal 8 team postseason, to me, would be:

 

OFF DAY

- #5/#7 #6/#8 play a one game playoff (higher seed hosts).

- #3 and #4 host the entire 3-game series

OFF DAY

(commence standard postseason schedule)

- 5-game series with the #1 and #2 seeds, standard hosting format

- 7 game LCS, standard hosting format

- 7 game World Series, standard hosting format

 

This set-up still leaves room for tiebreakers after the regular season, but they easily could do away with that. As it stands the #1/#2 seeds would get a double bye and idle for 6 days. While 6 days is a lot that is how long teams sit idle when they sweep a 7 game series in the postseason...and again it could be reduced to 4 days if one wanted. I also think they could easily reduce off days in the postseason a lot anyway. They play 18 games straight in the regular season and in the postseason there is constant off days.

 

There is still huge motivation to be elite for a double bye, still motivation to be the other division winner, and the highest WC gets a bye. It eliminates the ability for a 3-game series with a #1/#2. It makes the postseason longer, but only 4 days by my count (added 3-game series and the off day prior to 'divisional round' that don't currently exist). If the sub .500 teams survives all the way to the divisional round and the #1 seed loses to them, sorry, you deserve to lose at that point.

 

I still think the race to get into the postseason would be close/exciting, getting a Top 4/Top 2 seed would be huge, and the postseason would be jam packed with excitement with the 1-game/3-ganme series.

 

I fully expect MLB to go with something similar to what they are doing this year and honestly...I think it sucks.

[vetter]

I’m really torn on this overall. I think it will increase interest in the playoffs, but it’s probably moving away from the best way to crown a true champion in the sport.

 

Baseball can’t be compared to basketball because the true talent best team wins much more often in basketball. Baseball over a three game series is a truly random outcome, there will be plenty of near .500 teams that knock off a 100-win division champion in the first round.

 

The thing that is interesting to me about this is the worst place to be in baseball historically has been in the middle-of-the-pack. Baseball has mostly rewarded teams that were very good and very bad. This completely changes that dynamic.

 

I do think for those of us that love an active trade deadline we are probably less likely to see the best teams pull off blockbuster moves to “go for it” because of the increase in the randomness of possible outcomes.

 

I really hope they keep the 2020 playoff format indefinitely. I'm looking forward to a lot of David and Goliath postseason outcomes to your point of .500 teams knocking off a 100-win #1 seed.

 

Seriously, I can't understand why every Brewers fan isn't jumping up and down about the prospect of the new playoff rules being permanent. Given the lack of a salary cap in the MLB, this is the best thing that could happen for a small market/lower payroll team like Milwaukee. While ownership has splurged a bit recently in payroll, I don't know if we'll have that luxury moving forward with the financial ramifications of Covid-19, whatever that turns out to be.

 

And yes, this is great for middle of the pack teams. I could envision a team like Cincinnati making the #8 seed this year. They could very realistically take down a #1 seeded team like the Dodgers or Padres in a 3 game series. Now let's say the Brewers take the #6 seed and win in the first round. Instead of the Brewers ultimately facing a 5 or 7 game series against a team like the Dodgers (where realistically, they have very little chance of winning), the Dodgers have already been eliminated. The path to the World Series instantly becomes much more viable. We won't automatically be up against a team that has over twice our payroll in the longer format NLDS and NLCS.

[pacopete4]

Maybe this gives a team like the Brewers more opportunity to win but it becomes gimmicky when you are talking about playing 162 games in the regular season to decide things. A team that wins 75 games doesn't really belong getting a shot at a team that wins 95+. And this would happen just about every season which means you probably are never getting a true champion of your league. Baseball is a strange game with odd occurrences and strange bounces. Just doesn't seem right.

 

I'd almost rather that they put in a number of games needed to get in. Win 85 games (or you win your division) and you get included in the postseason. And have various formats/schedules ready for how many teams get to that number. At least then you are getting some teams that are of quality.

[Eye Black]

One thing I hope is here to stay is 7 inning doubleheaders. Those are great. More baseball and shorter games.

 

I'd love to build them into the regular schedule each year, and maybe have each team play one every other Saturday. Just doing that would build 12 more days off for each team into the season which i bet players would love.

I don't want Saturday unless they commit to having Friday and Sunday games. I enjoy weekend baseball too much to lose it. If anything, Sunday would be a great day for a double header which would allow Monday's to be an off day for guys to re-coop. But yes, I agree and have stated in before that I love the 2-7's throughout the year. It brings a different strategy to the season and the games move quickly and are exciting. That and the DH to the NL would be great to have stay in the game.

They will always keep games on Friday’s and Sunday’s because those are the games teams make the highest in-venue revenue from. It’s also the reason I would be shocked if the owners would be in favor of the frequent 7-inning doubleheader’s once fans return. Less total dates with home baseball games means less total parking, concessions, and ticket revenue.

[brewers888]

Why play a 162 game season if there is a chance of having a 75 win playoff team. Baseball was the one sport where the regular season actually meant something and this idiotic commissioner is destroying it.

[brewers888]

One other thing to consider is why should teams spend say an extra 10 million to go from potentially 80-85 wins when the 80 will get you in the playoffs. The incentive to get better is so much less when it doesn't take much to get in.

[brewers888]

Do the Brewers trade for CC if they were playoff bound regardless.

[vetter]

I understand how people don't want the outcome of a 162 game marathon to be watered down. But for the life of me, I don't understand how Brewers fans are contending for things like first round byes. That's just the traditional, antiquated MLB status quo which has literally stacked the deck against a team like Milwaukee for 50 years.

 

I'm not trying to resurrect the salary cap discussion. But a first round bye works for something like the NFL which has a salary cap. I have no problem with those teams being rewarded with a bye. And they're also not playing a 5 or 7 game series. Basically any NFL team can beat another team on any given day if it's one game.

 

But the whole concept of "the best team should win" is flawed to begin with. Were the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals really the best team? They went 83-79 but won the World Series. If we use a "85 win cutoff" to make the playoffs, they wouldn't have even qualified yet they went on to win it all. Were the Packers the best NFL team in 2010? They were only 10-6 and barely made the wild card but won the SB.

 

So let's just keep rewarding teams like the Dodgers, Cubs, or Nationals who pay more money for Scherzer in 2019 than all 5 Brewers starters. It gives every incentive and advantage to the teams that have deep pocketbooks. They'll purchase their way to a first round bye, relax at home for the WC series, and then beat a fringe contender in a long series because their expensive pitching and free agents are so stacked. I get it, there's plenty of exceptions. But go back and compare payroll to playoffs and note the connection.

 

At least a 3 game wild card series gives some credibility to the winner. The better team will win most of the time. But it's still not insurmountable for an underdog to have a legitimate shot at winning.

[pacopete4]

I understand how people don't want the outcome of a 162 game marathon to be watered down. But for the life of me, I don't understand how Brewers fans are contending for things like first round byes. That's just the traditional, antiquated MLB status quo which has literally stacked the deck against a team like Milwaukee for 50 years.

 

I'm not trying to resurrect the salary cap discussion. But a first round bye works for something like the NFL which has a salary cap. I have no problem with those teams being rewarded with a bye. And they're also not playing a 5 or 7 game series. Basically any NFL team can beat another team on any given day if it's one game.

 

But the whole concept of "the best team should win" is flawed to begin with. Were the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals really the best team? They went 83-79 but won the World Series. If we use a "85 win cutoff" to make the playoffs, they wouldn't have even qualified yet they went on to win it all. Were the Packers the best NFL team in 2010? They were only 10-6 and barely made the wild card but won the SB.

 

So let's just keep rewarding teams like the Dodgers, Cubs, or Nationals who pay more money for Scherzer in 2019 than all 5 Brewers starters. It gives every incentive and advantage to the teams that have deep pocketbooks. They'll purchase their way to a first round bye, relax at home for the WC series, and then beat a fringe contender in a long series because their expensive pitching and free agents are so stacked. I get it, there's plenty of exceptions. But go back and compare payroll to playoffs and note the connection.

 

At least a 3 game wild card series gives some credibility to the winner. The better team will win most of the time. But it's still not insurmountable for an underdog to have a legitimate shot at winning.

 

You must've just not read that I mentioned division winners getting in. Either way, just because the Brewers have been at a disadvantage monetarily for 50 years, doesn't mean I want the system blown up into something that doesn't provide the best product.

[vetter]

One other thing to consider is why should teams spend say an extra 10 million to go from potentially 80-85 wins when the 80 will get you in the playoffs. The incentive to get better is so much less when it doesn't take much to get in.

 

This is another factor that would play into the strategy of the off season. Teams will have to decide if the extra payroll is ultimately worth the return. But the end result is that there's probably less advantage to a massive payroll, further leveling the playing field across the MLB.

 

In the end though, there's still every incentive to spend a lot of money and win a lot of games in the regular season. Spending more money, ostensibly, will give teams greater talent and depth to go deep into the playoffs. Winning more games translates into a higher seed, playing a lesser opponent in the first round, 3 game series. Again, the better team will still win most of the time.

 

But the beauty of the 2020 playoff rules is this: A team like the Dodgers, who have a massive payroll and won a lot of regular season games, has a very real chance of losing to a team like the Reds or the Brewers in the 3 game wild card series. I'd love to see Kershaw, Buehler, and May in a 3 game series against Castillo, Bauer, and Gray. That's an epic pitching matchup on paper, and either team has a legitimate chance of winning. And if a behemoth like the Dodgers go down in that series, all bets are off in the NLDS and NLCS. The better team will almost always win the 5 or 7 game series. But that would open the floodgates to the remaining teams that are left standing.

[JosephC]

So, would the exchange between the players and the owners be for the owners to get the expanded playoff format, and the players get a return to a 154 game regular season schedule?

 

If the TV money from adding 6 teams and a full playoff round exceeds the revenue generated from 8 regular season games, then I think this could be a pretty likely outcome.

[brewcrewdue80]

Im cool with the expanded playoff but there needs to be the caveat that 79wins as an 8seed doesnt qualify for the playoffs. 1seed just gets a bye at that point. Likewise if it turns out the 7 seed is at 79 wins. Just put it 80wins and top 8 seed to qualify. If #2 in a division is 79wins DQ. A losing team during the season shouldnt have the opportunity to win the WS after 162 game grind. If you believe they do, there shouldn't be 162games in a season. Make playoffs 7game series letting below .500 teams play vs #1&2seeds. So that means reduce the season to 146games. (4 in division games each) This will give a 95-100win team the proper HFA over a 71 (in 146gm under 500) or less win team. You want 8 teams? Nhl and NBA play 7game series. That's how this needs to go.

[vetter]

So here we are, 29-30. The excitement has been intense all weekend and we have meaningful baseball on the last day of the regular season. With a win on Sunday we're in the playoffs on a .500 record. We can technically make the #8 seed this year with a losing record. Anything can happen in a 3 game WC series. We have a legit chance (albeit very slim w/o Burnes) to knock off the Dodgers if we're #8. Win or lose it doesn't get much more exciting than this. And it gives us all a reason to care and pay attention right down to the last game.

 

Meanwhile, people are arguing that a team should have a winning (or non-losing record) to qualify for the playoffs. Would you truly prefer we be out of contention after the STL loss on Friday night and hand the Dodgers a bye because we can't mathematically have a winning record?

 

Just ridiculous.

 

The 2020 playoff rules have already added a great deal of excitement. If you've been watching the STL series and following the team this weekend, pulling for a playoff berth, then you're a beneficiary of that. And guess what, it's made it more exciting for small market teams like Milwaukee and Cincinnati. It's made it exciting for fringe teams like San Francisco and Miami who bounce back from 105 losses a season ago to the playoffs this year. Not so much for the big market Dodgers, Braves and Cubs.

 

Thank you MLB for actually thinking outside the box and defying the status quo.

[SomewhereInTime]

So here we are, 29-30. The excitement has been intense all weekend and we have meaningful baseball on the last day of the regular season. With a win on Sunday we're in the playoffs on a .500 record. We can technically make the #8 seed this year with a losing record. Anything can happen in a 3 game WC series. We have a legit chance (albeit very slim w/o Burnes) to knock off the Dodgers if we're #8. Win or lose it doesn't get much more exciting than this. And it gives us all a reason to care and pay attention right down to the last game.

 

Meanwhile, people are arguing that a team should have a winning (or non-losing record) to qualify for the playoffs. Would you truly prefer we be out of contention after the STL loss on Friday night and hand the Dodgers a bye because we can't mathematically have a winning record?

 

Just ridiculous.

 

The 2020 playoff rules have already added a great deal of excitement. If you've been watching the STL series and following the team this weekend, pulling for a playoff berth, then you're a beneficiary of that. And guess what, it's made it more exciting for small market teams like Milwaukee and Cincinnati. It's made it exciting for fringe teams like San Francisco and Miami who bounce back from 105 losses a season ago to the playoffs this year. Not so much for the big market Dodgers, Braves and Cubs.

 

Thank you MLB for actually thinking outside the box and defying the status quo.

 

No but if we had the #1 record in the NL like we did in 2018, I absolutely would not want the Brewers to have to play a losing team in a best of 3 series before the NLDS.

 

Sure it's great for us this year, but other years probably not.