How many teams in each league should make the playoffs?

[champaignchris]

As nerve-racking as this must be to the D-Backs and Rocks fans, I can’t imagine any neutral observer complaining about the format while watching tonight’s game. Just some fantastic baseball going on tonight.

[jersey cubs fan]

#NotFair

[Regular Show]

As nerve-racking as this must be to the D-Backs and Rocks fans, I can’t imagine any neutral observer complaining about the format while watching tonight’s game. Just some fantastic baseball going on tonight.

 

I guess I'm in the minority then. This game is super exciting and I'm glad my favorite team isn't playing it it, but as a neutral observer I still don't think it's fair. We'll see what happens down the road probably when expansion happens again.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As nerve-racking as this must be to the D-Backs and Rocks fans, I can’t imagine any neutral observer complaining about the format while watching tonight’s game. Just some fantastic baseball going on tonight.

 

I guess I'm in the minority then. This game is super exciting and I'm glad my favorite team isn't playing it it, but as a neutral observer I still don't think it's fair. We'll see what happens down the road probably when expansion happens again.

 

Let's say you have a true 95-win team and a true 83-win team. How often do you think the better team wins in a 1-game series vs. a 3-game series?

[Regular Show]

I get what you're saying -- I know the statistics. I mean let's be honest: there isn't a big difference between a 5 game series or a 7 game series either. Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have the longer series whenever possible.

 

Obviously, the time crunch/scheduling issues play a part and giving an advantage to the division winners is important too.

[Teddy17]

I like an idea that was floated that if there was a gap between the two wild card teams then do like the KBC and have a two game playoff. The team with the better record has to win once, but the team with the worse record has to win twice. It significantly increases the chances that the best team advances (more so than a best of three would) and still puts a significant penalty for being the wildcard, more so if the best team doesn’t win that first game. You could even do this as a doubleheader.

 

I know there are a couple of logistical issues, but I like the idea in principle.

[Sammy Sofa]

Fair, shamir; if you don't want to have to play the WC, win the damn division.

[biittner77]

Before the one game playoff, there were teams that didn't really try to win the division because winning the wild card got them the same chance in the playoffs as anyone else. Before there was any wild card there were seasons when a 90+ win team didn't make the playoffs at all but a team with 84 wins did. That's not fair either.

 

A one game playoff is the perfect solution to these problems. Win the one game playoff and your team advances and has a chance for the ultimate prize. Lose the one game playoff and you spare yourself the agony of losing later on. It also gives that team's fans the perfect excuse for what went wrong.

[squally1313]

My slight tweak, which really isn't different enough to warrant changing:

 

Two divisions in each league, 1st place in your division gets you into the divisional series, 2nd and 3rd place in each division play a one-game playoff to make the divisional series. The divisional series are always played against the other team in your division.

 

Doubles down on the one-game playoff, steals hockey's idea of encouraging division rivalries in the early rounds of the playoffs, increases the number of playoff games by 2 (2 more wild card games), but those are played on the same night so the overall schedule stays the same. Obviously the big change would be moving to two divisions.

[Bull]

My slight tweak, which really isn't different enough to warrant changing:

 

Two divisions in each league, 1st place in your division gets you into the divisional series, 2nd and 3rd place in each division play a one-game playoff to make the divisional series. The divisional series are always played against the other team in your division.

 

Doubles down on the one-game playoff, steals hockey's idea of encouraging division rivalries in the early rounds of the playoffs, increases the number of playoff games by 2 (2 more wild card games), but those are played on the same night so the overall schedule stays the same. Obviously the big change would be moving to two divisions.

 

I like it. but like you said, not enough to risk what is working.

 

Also, with an odd number of teams in each league, it makes scheduling difficult as one division has an extra team. Perhaps this is a viable solution if they ever do expand again. (better than 4 divisions in each league)

[jersey cubs fan]

My slight tweak, which really isn't different enough to warrant changing:

 

Two divisions in each league, 1st place in your division gets you into the divisional series, 2nd and 3rd place in each division play a one-game playoff to make the divisional series. The divisional series are always played against the other team in your division.

 

Doubles down on the one-game playoff, steals hockey's idea of encouraging division rivalries in the early rounds of the playoffs, increases the number of playoff games by 2 (2 more wild card games), but those are played on the same night so the overall schedule stays the same. Obviously the big change would be moving to two divisions.

And that is a problem. Baseball is a local/provincial sport, and an everyday sport. Divisional rivalries matter, and are the lifeblood of the regular season. There is nothing to be gained by going to 2 divisions. The Brewers don't need to be playing the Marlins more every year and the Cubs less. Baseball isn't going to improve with fewer Dodgers/Giants games, which would be required under a 2 division format.

 

There are 30 major league baseball teams and no good reason to expand. The best way to handle that is to have 3, 5-team divisions. Going 7/8 is an unnecessary mess.

 

I also hate the idea of setting up a situation where a 101 win division leader plays first round against a 100 win WC that played a 95 win WC while the other side of the bracket has a potential for a 93 win team playing a first round series against a 85 win team that knocked out an 84 win team.

 

The best record in the league should get some benefit to having the best record. They face a WC team now that could actually be the 2nd best team, but they are also forced to burn top pitchers and wear down a bullpen in the WC game. There's no built in benefit to having the best record in your system.

 

At the end of the day, baseball should not be stealing ideas from hockey, which makes it difficult to miss the playoffs.

Edited October 5, 2017 by jersey cubs fan

[Hairyducked Idiot]

My slight tweak, which really isn't different enough to warrant changing:

 

Two divisions in each league, 1st place in your division gets you into the divisional series, 2nd and 3rd place in each division play a one-game playoff to make the divisional series. The divisional series are always played against the other team in your division.

 

Doubles down on the one-game playoff, steals hockey's idea of encouraging division rivalries in the early rounds of the playoffs, increases the number of playoff games by 2 (2 more wild card games), but those are played on the same night so the overall schedule stays the same. Obviously the big change would be moving to two divisions.

 

I don't hate it.

[squally1313]

My slight tweak, which really isn't different enough to warrant changing:

 

Two divisions in each league, 1st place in your division gets you into the divisional series, 2nd and 3rd place in each division play a one-game playoff to make the divisional series. The divisional series are always played against the other team in your division.

 

Doubles down on the one-game playoff, steals hockey's idea of encouraging division rivalries in the early rounds of the playoffs, increases the number of playoff games by 2 (2 more wild card games), but those are played on the same night so the overall schedule stays the same. Obviously the big change would be moving to two divisions.

And that is a problem. Baseball is a local/provincial sport, and an everyday sport. Divisional rivalries matter, and are the lifeblood of the regular season. There is nothing to be gained by going to 2 divisions. The Brewers don't need to be playing the Marlins more every year and the Cubs less. Baseball isn't going to improve with fewer Dodgers/Giants games, which would be required under a 2 division format.

 

There are 30 major league baseball teams and no good reason to expand. The best way to handle that is to have 3, 5-team divisions. Going 7/8 is an unnecessary mess.

 

I also hate the idea of setting up a situation where a 101 win division leader plays first round against a 100 win WC that played a 95 win WC while the other side of the bracket has a potential for a 93 win team playing a first round series against a 85 win team that knocked out an 84 win team.

 

The best record in the league should get some benefit to having the best record. They face a WC team now that could actually be the 2nd best team, but they are also forced to burn top pitchers and wear down a bullpen in the WC game. There's no built in benefit to having the best record in your system.

 

At the end of the day, baseball should not be stealing ideas from hockey, which makes it difficult to miss the playoffs.

 

The idea I was stealing from hockey was encouraging division/local rivalries, which is what you started talking about. I'd also encourage making the schedule more unbalanced, to increase games played against rival teams/teams near you, and decrease the odds that you'd have the two best records coming from the same division. The best record would get home field, obviously, but if the Cubs and Cardinals both make the playoffs, I'd want to guarantee they play each other.

 

This idea gives guaranteed division series spots to 4 teams, down from 6, so I wouldn't say it's making it easier to make the playoffs.

[jersey cubs fan]

The idea I was stealing from hockey was encouraging division/local rivalries, which is what you started talking about.

 

It doesn't though. The lifeblood of baseball is the regular season. Teams make their money on their local revenue, both television and attendance, over the course of 162 games. And most teams don't make the playoffs. 3 5-team divisions allows for a greater amount of local rivalries, while 2 divisions of 7/8 just spreads that around more. Your plan only focuses on the playoff end of things. But in the current system divisional rivalries already meet in the playoffs with regularity. The Cubs have had big matchups with the pirates and cardinals in recent years, the AL West is going through it this year.

 

And the hockey thing only happens because everybody already makes the playoffs.

 

I'd also encourage making the schedule more unbalanced, to increase games played against rival teams/teams near you, and decrease the odds that you'd have the two best records coming from the same division. The best record would get home field, obviously, but if the Cubs and Cardinals both make the playoffs, I'd want to guarantee they play each other.

 

This idea gives guaranteed division series spots to 4 teams, down from 6, so I wouldn't say it's making it easier to make the playoffs.

You can "encourage" all you want but forcing 15 teams into two divisions and then forcing teams to face a specific team in the playoffs is just making a mess of a system that already works.

 

 

 

 

Again, the bottom line is this system works. It balances the idea of making the regular season matter, having a benefit to having the best record in your league, giving a 2nd chance to a great team that sits behind an elite team, but "punishes" them for not winning the division in the first place.

[SouthSideRyan]

I hesitate to ask what sport the KBC is from that we should be emulating. It's been a smashing success for croquet so I don't see why baseball shouldn adopt it

[Ding Dong Johnson]

[squally1313]

Didn't quite run the math on how the schedule would play out in an 8 team division, so my initial thinking that you'd still play your rivals just as much doesn't really hold up (unless you like the idea of playing 133 games against divisional opponents).

 

You're right, the system works fine as is. My way is as close to a 'bye' system as there likely would be, and it doubles the amount of wild card games, a concept I think everyone supports. Probably works better in a 24-25 team league than 30 though.

[Teddy17]

I hesitate to ask what sport the KBC is from that we should be emulating. It's been a smashing success for croquet so I don't see why baseball shouldn adopt it

 

Sorry KBO typo. KBC is a bar in DC. Korean Baseball Organization.

[biittner77]

Hockey playoffs are not made better by playing the same horsefeathering team every horsefeathering year. It actually punishes a team for being in a better division as opposed to seeding the teams 1-8 in each conference.

 

There's no way they're going to shorten the season to allow for more teams to make the playoffs.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I hesitate to ask what sport the KBC is from that we should be emulating. It's been a smashing success for croquet so I don't see why baseball shouldn adopt it

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-improve-the-wild-card-round/

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Any idea that created a potentially non-decisive game in the wild card round is a non-starter.

[soccer10k]

Fairness has nothing to do with it. This is a sport. People pay to be entertained.

 

That's dumb. Sports isn't just about pure entertainment. Why did the NBA expand to a 7 game series for every round? There are fewer upsets now in the first round because of it. I'd say that's more fair to the better teams in the NBA.

 

They did it for money and the chance for 2 more playoff games.

[biittner77]

Any idea that created a potentially non-decisive game in the wild card round is a non-starter.

 

Here's a summary: the WC series is a best of 2. Wild Card 2 needs to win both games of a double header to advance. Wildcard 1 need only win 1 game. That would make for some pretty intense game action. It gives the 4th best team a big advantage over the 5th best team. At the same time, it still punishes the 4th best team for not winning the division.

 

Downside: other than the fans of those 2 teams, who's going to watch the first 7 innings of game 1? So unless WC 2 wins game 1, ratings will probably go down.

[Teddy17]

Any idea that created a potentially non-decisive game in the wild card round is a non-starter.

 

two game playoff has two eliminations games.

[jersey cubs fan]

Any idea that created a potentially non-decisive game in the wild card round is a non-starter.

 

Here's a summary: the WC series is a best of 2. Wild Card 2 needs to win both games of a double header to advance. Wildcard 1 need only win 1 game. That would make for some pretty intense game action. It gives the 4th best team a big advantage over the 5th best team. At the same time, it still punishes the 4th best team for not winning the division.

 

Downside: other than the fans of those 2 teams, who's going to watch the first 7 innings of game 1? So unless WC 2 wins game 1, ratings will probably go down.

what in the world would be the point of this fiasco?