Ultimate Playoff Format

by guayzimi on Oct 6, 2008 12:58 PM EDT Comment 75 comments

Yes I was happy to see the Small Bears flame out, but the Cubs-Dodgers exposed what a travesty the current playoff format is. The Dodgers played like absolute crap for five months, they got into the playoffs because they managed (barely) to finish north of 500, and now they have a shot at a pennant because they put together a run of three good games. Remember when teams actually had to be great to win a pennant?

Baseball should establish a system that 1) creates exciting finishes, and 2) doesn't devalue the regular system. The current system achieves #1 to an extent - watching the Brewers, Mets, and Dbacks slump to the finish line is more pathetic than exciting. And it completely fails on point #2. 25% of National League teams should not make the playoffs, and teams that win 52% of their games like the Dodgers (and '06 Cardinals) should be seen for what they are: mediocrities in need of improvement. Baseball is going to turn into the NBA if real meaning isn't added to the regular season and soon.

So how to improve the situation?

* Two divisions with eight teams each: the Cubs, Cards, and Astros go with the Western division teams; the Brewers, Pirates and Reds go to the East.

* Division winners and one wild card go to the playoffs

* Team with top record (regular-season league champion) goes straight to the NLCS with home field advantage, as in the NFL.

* The other division winner plays the wild card and hosts all seven games.

The merits of this system are as follows:

There would still be hope well into September for a large number of teams as is the case now
The chance that a team with <85 wins could sneak in would be lower
First place teams would almost never coast into October because seeding would be tremendously important
An excellent 162-game campaign like the '08 Cubs had could not be upended by an unworthy team like the Dodgers.

Yes the Dodgers won fair and square, but this is baseball. Great teams lose 40% of the time.

0 recs | Comment 75 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Travesty?

I disagree. I’ve said all year that the cubs would struggle come the playoffs, b/c they would struggle to hit good, playoff-caliber pitching. That proved correct.

I have no problems with the current setup, or how things have tended to playout under this format.

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 6, 2008 1:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you

if you are great team,like the Cubs were supposed to be, you should be able to win a 5 games series.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 6, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have no problems with the current setup either

and the biggest issue with your proposed format is the best team in each league is sitting on their assess for about 9 straight days. While the rest might be welcome, it’s totally out of the ordianary for mlb teams to have more than one day off (except for the All-Star break, but all teams are off so its fair).

And while the Dodgers record might not be impressive, I’m pretty sure it would have been a heck of a lot better had they played the entire season with Manny and Casey Blake. They gave way too many innings to guys like Andruw Jones, Juan Pierre, Jeff Kent and even Hu because of the injury to Furcal. The team they’re fielding right now is definately in the top 2 in the National League.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Reminds me of the 06 cards

really the Dodgers are very similar to the 06 Cards

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree

both teams had regular season records brought down by the failings of a few individuals – the 2006 Cards were sabotaged by Izzy, Mulder, and Marquis. By the time October rolled around those guys were off the roster and their places were taken by Wainwright, Weaver, and the favorable October schedule that eliminated the need for a 5th starter.

In the same way, the Dodgers were hindered by Andruw, Nomar, Pierre, etc, until Colletti went out and got Manny and Blake. All those pre-Manny/Blake losses in no way reflect the team you see today.

Oh, and it’s fun to play around with symmetry and fairness and schedules and stuff, but there is no way in hell they are changing this playoff format. It makes TONS of money – so many teams are in contention for so much longer. And, if you cripple the wild card entry too much, fans of the teams vying for that spot will know it, and the frenxy around it will lessen.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 6, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The 2006 Cardinals

had two 8 game losing streaks and one 7 games losing streak. I think there talent was more in line with the rest of that seasons record, and that showed in the playoffs. If they would have went 4-4, 4-4, and 3-4 during those losing streaks, they would have won 94 games. I think that win total was more in line with their talent level. 94 wins and we don’t hear any complaining about the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 6, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like it.

I think that it hurts both of the winning teams more than hit hurts the wild card team. Why?

1) The wild card team didn’t win their division, but get a shot at the playoffs. I still do not like that.
2) The division winner that has to play the wild card team get screwed because the other team gets to rest.
3) The division winner that sits around could easily get screwed and have to sit around for 10-12 days while the other two teams battle it out. It makes them lose all momentum.

Remember, this is not football where players are accustomed to sitting for a week or two to let their bodies heal. Baseball players are used to the grind. Heck, some teams get screwed up by the All-Star break, which only screws with their schedule for 4-5 days.

I still think that the best way to do it (even though I do not necessarily advocate it because it would require expansion) is to expand the league to 8 divisions in 2 leagues, having 4 teams per division (this means having 32 teams (thus expanding by two). Then, all 4 division winners go to the playoffs in each league.

From there, it plays out with just best record having home against worst record (in league). Second round the same. Whoever is left in the World Series, best record gets home.

by stlfan on Oct 6, 2008 1:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and sometime it rains.

by garden nome on Oct 6, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

First off point 3 reminds me of a recent world series…..

Secondly I like having even divisions, with even leagues, and 4 teams per division would still give teams the chance to make it each year since you only have to be better then 3 others.

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Expansion

Here is how I would see the 4 divisions working out:

NLWest: SD, SF, LAD, ARZ
NLNorth: COL, STL, CHC, MIL
NLEast: NYM,CIN,PIT,PHI
NLSouth: HOU,FLA,ATL,WSH

ALWest: LAA,OAK,SEA, Expansion
ALSouth: TEX,TB,KC, Expansion
ALNorth:CHC,MIN,DET,CLE
ALEast: NYY,TOR,BOS,BAL

Not certain of where the expansion cities would be but I would think LV would work for either the west or the south (though a baseball team in LV might be interesting, maybe Pete Rose would own it)

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LV in the AL South...

… and in the AL west; Omaha… they love baseball there

by Viva Vina on Oct 6, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It might be

too soon for expansion, but I like that idea down the road. Only each league will have to have one new team instead of two in the AL. Just a small adjustment.

by nybirdfan on Oct 6, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To do that you have to...

move a NL team to the AL. Right now it’s 16/14 with the AL having 2 fewer teams.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 6, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah I know

but it is fun to think about it. Why move the Astroles to the AL south and add a new NL team from New Orleans or another Gulf State? Then the Texans can really go at it.

by nybirdfan on Oct 6, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It wouldn't be New Orleans

they can barely take care of themselves right now let alone being able to build a baseball stadium and getting a team.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

The scheduling headaches of having 15 teams in each league would be enormous. The only solution is interleague play all year long. Anyone want that?

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 6, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe he's talking about having 16 teams in each league.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

we need fewer divisions, not more. As is, one of the six divisions is already so horrible that it’s arguable that they shouldn’t be sending a team to the playoffs at all. If you add a division, you’re only increasing the probability that this will happen. We’d have a team with a losing record make the playoffs before too long under this plan.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 7, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just look at the NFC East vs. the NFC West this year (and last year, and the year before that.....)

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 7, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My argument to that would be...

But at least they would have won their division.

by stlfan on Oct 7, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So did the local little league team

That doesn’t mean that it makes sense to pair them off against the Phillies. We dont’ need to create a bunch of tiny divisions, and then trumpet how great it is that no divisional also-ran is making the playoffs now.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 7, 2008 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's crazy is that the best team in that division,

the one that gets to beat up on a pair of really really shitty teams a disproportionate amount of the time, only won 84 games.

by azruavatar on Oct 7, 2008 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...it sucks.

But when it is a team like the ‘08 Dodgers or ’06 Cardinals who were injured a lot of the year, or made big trades to solidify their team look like they can go all they way because they are a much different team than they were for the first month or 4…it’s worth having them there.

Who would really want the Cubs to represent the National League in the World Series if they’re playing the kind of baseball they played against LA? You want a team going that is playing good ball and has a good team.

by stlfan on Oct 8, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

but the only change that needs to be made is to make the first round 7 games instead of 5. whether this means pushing the w.s. even further into November, starting earlier in the year, or what I think would be best, to shorten the season a little bit, something needs to be done. the 5 game series to start of the playoffs is just retarded.

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 6, 2008 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why not

add a couple of double headers during the season to shorten the season by one week?

by nybirdfan on Oct 6, 2008 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love double headers

Not sure why we don’t have more scheduled, other then a rain out that day would be very bad

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

The players had them eleminated. Owner’s didn’t mind either cause that ment 2 for the price of one. Managers complained about the rotations. I think a Sunday double header with a Monday travel day could work.

by nybirdfan on Oct 6, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Owners don't like double headers

they always get lower attendance. And if you when the 2 for 1 route, they’re basically losing a game off their home schedule as far as ticket sales, merchandise, etc.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I knew this would be brought up

financial collapse may change their mind if no one can afford to go anyway; how about a 2 for 1 double header to bring people into the parks on the weekends?
/worst case scenario

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 6, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not going to happen until there is a dramatic drop in ticket sales

And, honestly, this might happen this offseason.

Actually, it’s something I’ve been thinking about from two different angles. First, what effect is this recent shit storm going to have on season ticket sales. And second, since I’m not a season ticket holder, I have no idea when people have to send in their money. I’m thinking its in December, but I could be wrong. So, I thought, hey one of my best friends is a cub season ticket holder, I could just ask him.

Which got me to thinking. How is the financial situation PLUS the fan outrage going to affect cub ticket sales? I know I’ve said it before and I still stand by it that the “outrage” displayed by cub fans is going to be short-lived. But, paired with the financial crisis and the relative quick turnaround from the playoffs to when the 2009 season tickets have to be paid for, that team might notice it more than others.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easy to do

Just eliminate a few of the travel days that populate October. You could do tthe division series in the same number of days if you elminated all the off days. I doubt you’d see a diluted product.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 6, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

there’s so many options to alleviate the dumb 5 game series; there’s a reason other sports eliminated this.

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 6, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

when you eliminate travel days

you also take away schedule flexibility in regards to make-up and stuff. Double headers aren’t always possible when dealing with rainouts.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

So take out just one travel day per series and you’ve cut things down while still retaining some flexibility.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 7, 2008 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never Gonna Happen...

there is no way baseball reduces the number of playoff participants…too much MONEY involved. We still have by far the fewest playoff teams of all major sports.

To those who don’t like the wildcard…I disagree. IMO the wildcard is usually the 2nd (or at least 3rd) best team in the league…it just happens that the best team in the league is in the same division – the wildcard helps to even that out. It is not uncommon for the second best record in a league to belong to the wildcard team.

I do like the idea of balanced divisions, but I don’t know that I like expansion as the answer. If anything we have teams in cities/states (Florida) right now that aren’t supported enough. I kinda like the idea of six 5 team divisions moving KC to the AL west and Milwalkee to the AL Central…probably a scheduling nightmare since you’d have to have a “roving” interleague matchup, but I think there is some intreague to that idea, too.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 6, 2008 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather move both of the FL teams...

out west – maybe LV and Portland?

AL East – NYY, BOS, TOR, BAL, CLE
AL Central – KC, TX, CHI, DET, MIN
AL West – ANA, OAK, SEA, POR, ARI

NL East – NYM, PHI, WAS, ATL, CIN (maybe PITT, but then you have two teams from PHIL.)
NL Central – CHI, STL, MIL, PIT, HOU
NL West – LA, SD, SF, COL, LV

You could still have about 12 interleague games per team per season, and even an “interleague week” (six games).

by cardzfanbub on Oct 6, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

uh..

When did Pittsburgh become Philadelphia?

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My bad...

PENN

brain….not….working….ughhh!!

by cardzfanbub on Oct 6, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

haha

I figured ;)

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Portland?

I want to see MLB here as much as anyone but it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Portlanders won’t give public financing for anything when our economy is in the tank and we’re paying for a major MAX (light rail) extension with the inevitable huge cost of replacing the bridge over the Columbia looming. I don’t see it happening. Otherwise we’d be all for it, if it were privately-financed-but when is that going to happen?

Also, the Mariners consider Portland their territory and will fight to keep it that way.

by mattisnotfrench on Oct 8, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

can the Mariners do that?

I know they might “consider” it their territory, but isn’t Seattle and Portland about as close as Chicago and St. Louis? 4-5 hours on open roads? I know mlb gives teams a territory where they can protest a new team (this happened with Baltimore and Washington), but I think Portland and Seattle are far enough away.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 8, 2008 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

15 teams per league?

Unless you wanted interleague going ALL year for 1 team from each league, or some team gets off for 3 days at a time, this wouldn’t work. That’s the whole reason the NL has 16 teams to the AL having 14.

I think you’d probably have to have a greater number of interleague games in order to make this work, otherwise you’d break the schedule.

by mtalken on Oct 10, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Limit Home Games of Wild Card

The only changes I would make in the system would be to only give the wild card one home game in the division series and two home games in the league championship series, if the wild card gets beyond the division series.

"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Oct 6, 2008 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and let the best record always play the WC

I understand some of the arguments for not letting the Cubs play Brewers, but seriously for the Cubs “deserved” to play the WC this year, now they also could have “deserved” to play the lowest WPCT team as well, but I think if you are going to further disadvantage the WC you have to give the advantage to the best record.

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What?

It would not have benefited the Cubs to have played the WC team this year at all (on paper). The Dodgers were the worst team, the Cubs the best. The Cubs deserved to play them.

by stlfan on Oct 6, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also said

that they deserved to play the lowest WPCT team (the Dodgers this year), but I find it odd that through a quirk in the system you could actually end up with the best team in the league playing a better team (the WC) then the lowest winner, Imagine if NYM had beat out MIL this year, the Cubs would have had the Mets and not the Dodgers, the system is flawed in that sense.

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Understand Your Point

The Cubs did end up playing the Dodgers, the NL playoff team with the worst record. The Brewers had a better record than the Dodgers.

Would it have been more fair for the Cubs with the best record to play against the Brewers with Milwaukee having only one home game in the series (as a proposed wild card penalty) but also having a better record than the Dodgers? I don’t know. I do know the Cubs embarrassed themselves against LA.

The Rays face the same situation in the AL. They have gotten to play the White Sox with the worst record of the AL playoff teams. If we want to penalize wild card teams, could we have had the Red Sox play the Rays in the division series with Boston only having one home game in the series?

On one hand, I feel like the wild card team should be penalized more. However, on the other hand, requiring the wild card team, even with only one home playoff game (as a proposed wild card penalty), to play the team with the best record in the division series, could penalize the team with the best record, when the wild card team does not have the worst record of the playoff teams?

If the wild card team does not have the worst record of the playoff teams, would it be fair to the team with the best record in the league to have that wild card team with only one home game in the division series as a penalty play against a lesser division winner, when the team with the best record would have to play against another playoff team that would get two home games in a 4 or 5 game division series?

Do all teams with home field advantage in the division series need to get 4 out of 5 games at home, if the series goes the distance?

"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Oct 6, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep

lots and lots of questions and possibilities and at some point figuring out what is affecting “your team” would turn fans away

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah but

the Dodgers had a lot of things come together at the end of the season that makes them a much different team than their reg. season record: mainly getting Manny Ramirez and getting Furcal back from injury

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 6, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and getting Casey Blake

which allowed them to move Blake DeWitt to 2nd which sent Jeff Kent to the bench.

Basically, down the stretch, they went from an infield of DeWitt, Hu, Kent, and Garciaparra/Loney to Blake, Furcal, DeWitt, and Loney. Big damn difference there.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

The Brewers should have had one home game in a division series against the Cubs. I don’t think the Cubs could have beaten the Springfield Cardinals with the way the Cubs played in the division series. In the AL, the Red Sox should have had one home game in a division series versus the Rays.

"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Oct 6, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to point out...

teams with long layoffs have had mixed results recently: the ‘07 Rockies and the ’06 Tigers bombed, but the White Sox blew into the 2005 WS after sitting for a week. Anyway, it’s moot. Of course teams would rather get a bye and sit for a week than have to play a series and risk getting eliminate.

We could also shorten the wait by having a best of five between seeds #2 and #3 and since there is no traveling there would be no traveling days.

Regular season league champions used to win the pennant automatically and go straight to the WS. It would be good to return to that – as closely as possible – while maintaining excitement in multiple cities down the stretch. The NFL playoffs are the absolute model: teams fight like hell to grab the last couple playoff spots, but the #1 and #2 seeds almost always advance to the Super Bowl, as it should be.

by guayzimi on Oct 6, 2008 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I was extremely upset the Astros made it to the WS in 05 when
A.) We had the best record
B.) We waxed their floor during the regular season.
C.) They were in our division

Again it takes the regular season and says just play good enough to get in and press the reset button. It doesn’t take into account the grind of winning all those games. YOu should be rewarded in some way for being the best. What that is is an excellent debate.

"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop

by OKCardsfan on Oct 6, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are rewarded.....

With an easier opponent, and home field advantage.

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 6, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

I bet the Cubs would have beat the Phillies or the Brewers

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 6, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if course they would have beat the Brewers

weren’t the Brewers like barely better against the Cubs than the Pirates were?

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 6, 2008 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What makes you think they'd have beaten Philly?

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 6, 2008 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Misleading.....

The NFL playoffs are the absolute model: teams fight like hell to grab the last couple playoff spots, but the #1 and #2 seeds almost always advance to the Super Bowl, as it should be.

Different sport. The better team wins in football and basketball alot more often than in baseball. That is what makes baseball so fun…..the worst team CAN beat the best team on any given day. That is why they play a series.

I also disagree that that is the way it should be. The goal is to be playing the best ball come playoff time, while still winning enough along the way to ensure you make the playoffs.

Should college basketball just skip the March Madness, and place the top 4 teams in the Final Four?

by SoonerfanTU on Oct 6, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

College v. Pro

It’s hard to compare college sports to pro sports when it comes to championship formats. The biggest reason is that pro sports teams have the abilllity to go out and try and address problems they have during the season with trades and pick-ups and the like.

Remember a few years back when Illinois and North Carolina were the two best college basketball teams in the country? All season people kept saying “If those teams meet in the tournament, Illinois won’t have an answer for Sean May in the paint.” Guess what happened in the final? Sean May dominated and UNC won. Had this been the pros, Illinois could and should have gone out and traded for a guy able to handle May.

This flexibliity inherent in pro sports is why playoffs exist. I agree with Soonerfan that the goal should be to be the best come playoff time. Look at the Dodgers. I basically look at that team and throw their pre-MannyBlake record out the window. That team isn’t playing anymore. Look at what they’ve done since Manny : That is the team playing now. Good for them for acquiring the help they needed.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 6, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

March Madness

MM is much more of a crapshoot then the baseball playoffs, upsets abound, last year was actually a fluke. And while comparing the two may be flawed I do get where sooner is coming from you don’t skip your playoffs just because you want the top teams to meet at the end.

by StLHugo on Oct 6, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The tail...

is wagging the dog here. The regular season should be the main course and the playoffs should be a showdown between the best teams – dessert if you will. Surely being good over 162 games is more impressive than being good over 5 or 7. If not, why bother with the 162 games?

The thing that makes the NCAA playoffs great is that there are perceived intermediate prizes – making the final four, the sweet sixteen, etc. The Cubs just had a great 162 game season, then because of a three game losing streak, the entire campaign is a failure. That’s just silly, because anyone who knows baseball knows that sometimes great teams go on three-game losing streaks.

by guayzimi on Oct 6, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 game losing streak

‘a showdown between the best teams" – right, but what does that mean? The Cubs won more games than the Dodgers, but the Dodgers right now are clearly a better team. So what does “he best teams” mean? This gets back to my “college v. pros” thing above. The Dodgers didn’t win as many games as the Cubs, but they have a better team right now.

on the 3 game losing streak – I’m with you. I think the LDS should be best of 7, with no travel days. This rewards the deeper teams, which are usually the ones who racked up more regular season wins.

by Hal Lanier's Pants on Oct 6, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by your reasoning hal

why not just let every team into the playoff tournament? you could argue that the two best teams in baseball as of the final weekend were the astros and blue jays -- why are they excluded?

by lboros on Oct 6, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

indians also finished very strong

34-20 over the last two months, best record in the a.l. - they only had 3 wins fewer than the dodgers over the full season. cleveland has cliff lee and an exciting offense -- they’d be exciting to watch in october. why shouldn’t they be in?

by lboros on Oct 6, 2008 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why don't they just go all nutso

and switch over the NBA & NHL version of the playoffs and have 8 teams in, Talk about the owners salivating over playoff proceeds. You could shorten the season back to 154, jack up ticket prices for the playoffs, and still come out ahead in revenues.

I wouldn’t really have a problem with that, but purists sure the hell would.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 6, 2008 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The NBA and NHL playoffs are endless and horrible

Do we really want to emulate a system that seems to go on forever and loses the interest of almost everyone because it never ends?

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 7, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no we do not

as soon as I posted it I thought that exact same thing. I really should have made us of the preview button on that comment.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Oct 7, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I watch most, if not all, of the playoff baseball that is on each year. I used to be a bigger NBA fan than baseball, but even back then, I didn’t even make any attempt to watch all the playoffs there.

In the NBA, teams can make it in with 36-38 wins some years. That’d be the equivalent of a 75 win team making it in for baseball. That’d be ridiculous.

If you want a playoff system, then there has to be some possibility that the “best” team won’t win. Do I have a problem with the ’04 and ’05 Cardinals losing? Not really. And neither do I see anything wrong with the title the ’06 Cardinals brought to St. Louis.

My favorite sporting event is the NCAA Hoops Tourney. I like the uncertainty. I like that the best team might be taken out in the 2nd round by some 8 or 9 seed that was 4th in their conference or 1st in a small conference. I like that teams like Duke can be brought to their knees after winning 30+ games in the regular season.

I’m certainly not saying that baseball should adopt a single-elimination tourney, but it really doesn’t bother me when a superior team has a bad game or two and it costs them the championship. That’s the way it goes. If you don’t want that to be a possibility, just throw all 30 teams in the same league, have them play uniform schedules, and whoever has the most after 162 games is the champion, no playoffs at all.

by mtalken on Oct 10, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and I doubt the cubs would have been able to come back from down 3-0

Slice it any way you want. Cubs were gonna lose that series.

Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me......with nothin'.

Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.

by Tackle Box on Oct 6, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well argued guayzimi

my only point of disagreement is that i don’t see the need for a wild card at all. just divide it into two 8-team divisions (two 7s in the american league) and let the division champs play in the nlcs. leave the second-place teams out of it.

the dodgers had the 8th-best record in the national league - the very definition of undistinguished mediocrity, the marlins, cardinals, and astros all were better than the dodgers over 162 games. if the dodgers should go on to win the whole thing, we will have had two .500ish champions in a three-year span - at which point even the current system’s defenders would have to admit that the baseball postseason is largely arbitrary and meaningless. a lot of people already view it that way . . . .

by lboros on Oct 6, 2008 6:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's a concession...

to those that think we need the WC for added excitement every September. I don’t mind if there isn’t a humdinger of a pennant race every year… makes you remember the truly special seasons – like 1993 when the Giants won 103 games and spent October playing golf. But most people seem to think that half of baseball needs to be in it till the end or else the fans will get bored. These are the times we live in. Fine. But if you go for a gimmick like the wild card, at least make it so difficult for the WC to win that it happens infrequently.

by guayzimi on Oct 6, 2008 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice to see you...

lurking about, btw…

by guayzimi on Oct 6, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have a feeling a 2 division setup would simply reward the big spenders even more often.

How many times would the Minnesota Twins made the playoffs in the past decade if they had to compete in the same division with Boston and New York and only one of those teams could make the playoffs?

How many times would the A’s make the playoffs if they had to compete with 7 teams in the West if only one of those teams could make the playoffs?

This playoff system worked fine over a decade ago, but back then the “free-spending” teams only spent many 5-6 million more total payroll than the median teams. The Twins, A’s and even Cardinals have good enough front offices overall to be able to overcome a 5-6 million payroll deficit. If the big market teams truly spend freely like Boston and the two New York teams though, then what chance will smaller market teams have? Maybe an occasional year will happen like this year, when the D’Rays can surpass both the Yanks and Sox, but I think the casual fan of a team in a mid-sized or small market will completely lose interest if there are two teams that make the playoffs per league.

by mtalken on Oct 10, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i've got to echo quite a few of these comments...

i think that the idea of a weeklong layoff for the best team is what makes this idea a bad one. we saw what happened to the rockies last year, and what happened to the tigers in 2006.

baseball players can’t sit around for a week without facing real, live, top-tier MLB pitching, and then get right back into the swing of things once the LCS starts. you could argue that they could hold scrimmages with the minor league club, but that’s a far cry from facing the types of #1 and #2 starters they’d be facing in the LCS.

by djones9 on Oct 7, 2008 11:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs