Mlb might be changing playoff format

[ptatc]

15 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

I like the idea of adding teams for the playoffs.  Too many teams are essentially eliminated by mid-summer, and with the increased number of teams that are doing extended rebuilds, that issue is magnified.  This could be a step in the right direction to discourage the long rebuilds and/or the teams that won't spend year in and year out.

However, the top seeds picking their opponent is just silly.  It should be seeding that determines who plays whom.

I think part of the reason they are doing this is exactly what you said, they are trying to get more teams in the playoffs this eliminate some of the incentive to have so many teams in rebuilding mode.

[Harry Chappas]

So they are adding another week to the season.  

I guess we get eh answer as to what the owners are asking in exchange for reducing the service time issues.

I thought starting March 26th was a little early. 

No way any team is giving away 6 home games to reduce the schedule to 150 games.  Especially those that actually attract fans....although with that number dwindling who knows. 

 

[JoshPR]

Love Bauers  tweet Manfred is clueless and spineless

Edited February 11, 2020 by JoshPR

[SonofaRoache]

2 hours ago, hogan873 said:

I like the idea of adding teams for the playoffs.  Too many teams are essentially eliminated by mid-summer, and with the increased number of teams that are doing extended rebuilds, that issue is magnified.  This could be a step in the right direction to discourage the long rebuilds and/or the teams that won't spend year in and year out.

However, the top seeds picking their opponent is just silly.  It should be seeding that determines who plays whom.

Facts. If you play 162 games it's only fair that teams winning 90 games get a crack at a title. Especially when most good baseball teams win between 89 and 95 games, over 162 games that difference is not too significant. I don't like the idea of picking your team because it compromises the integrity of fairness. If you are the Yankees, you'd probably pick the Twins first, meaning teams like the Red Sox, A's, Ray's, etc can coast knowing even if they finish last, the won't play the top seed. Teams might also get unfairly picked based on injuries, this is not a good look for baseball. 

[he gone.]

The idea from MLB perspective - make it so that more teams are in the race until the end and have a chance. Therefore it will drive trades, FA signings, etc. This should in theory drive attendance and viewership - therefore ad money. Once you make the playoffs anything can happen within reason (think more NFL rather than NBA) and this is good for business. 

 

The reality -- the MLB is missing the point. The MLB just doesn't seem to get it - it's not how many teams are in the running - it's the fact that you aren't bringing in young viewership. This starts at the ballpark - where it's generally too expesnive nowadays for a family to attend. Now the bad teams have done their best & I actually think it's affordable in many locations ..... as long as you adhere to the deal -- aka the Sox for like 4UD tix + 4 dogs + 4 drinks for like $48 or something. That's a good deal. But you can't freely go to the park and get whatever food you want or park where you want, etc. for a good price. But that horse has been beat to death & we all know it needs revising  like the Atlanta Falcons have tried to do thus far - that's only like 25% of the pie. The remaining 75% of the pie has to do the at home viewing experience. Biggest issue is the duration .... not how many playoff teams. Duration of both season & games. Every game should be like a Mark Buehrle game. If you take the duration from 3hrs+ to 2hr 20mins you now have a product that is sustainable. Additionally if you're expanding playoffs then you need to shorten ST and Regular Season. 140 games and cut 10 games off ST. Each game counting for more = viewership. Finally the last part of this -- the MLB needs to learn how to market their star players better. Mike Trout is a pleasure to watch and I barely get to ... the MLB network does a great job each night covering games. Need more of that. Likewise these TV deals are a joke. The cubs are a great example this yaer. Dodgers in the past. The fact I need cable or streaming to watch the Sox is dumb. Let me pay $200 to watch the Sox for the year if I want - no blackouts. Where else in the world can you want to buy a product and not be able to?  If i want a car - i go buy it. food go buy it. watch a movie? go buy it. Why is it so hard to pay to watch the Sox?

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, BrianAnderson said:

The idea from MLB perspective - make it so that more teams are in the race until the end and have a chance. Therefore it will drive trades, FA signings, etc. This should in theory drive attendance and viewership - therefore ad money. Once you make the playoffs anything can happen within reason (think more NFL rather than NBA) and this is good for business. 

 

The reality -- the MLB is missing the point. The MLB just doesn't seem to get it - it's not how many teams are in the running - it's the fact that you aren't bringing in young viewership. This starts at the ballpark - where it's generally too expesnive nowadays for a family to attend. Now the bad teams have done their best & I actually think it's affordable in many locations ..... as long as you adhere to the deal -- aka the Sox for like 4UD tix + 4 dogs + 4 drinks for like $48 or something. That's a good deal. But you can't freely go to the park and get whatever food you want or park where you want, etc. for a good price. But that horse has been beat to death & we all know it needs revising  like the Atlanta Falcons have tried to do thus far - that's only like 25% of the pie. The remaining 75% of the pie has to do the at home viewing experience. Biggest issue is the duration .... not how many playoff teams. Duration of both season & games. Every game should be like a Mark Buehrle game. If you take the duration from 3hrs+ to 2hr 20mins you now have a product that is sustainable. Additionally if you're expanding playoffs then you need to shorten ST and Regular Season. 140 games and cut 10 games off ST. Each game counting for more = viewership. Finally the last part of this -- the MLB needs to learn how to market their star players better. Mike Trout is a pleasure to watch and I barely get to ... the MLB network does a great job each night covering games. Need more of that. Likewise these TV deals are a joke. The cubs are a great example this yaer. Dodgers in the past. The fact I need cable or streaming to watch the Sox is dumb. Let me pay $200 to watch the Sox for the year if I want - no blackouts. Where else in the world can you want to buy a product and not be able to?  If i want a car - i go buy it. food go buy it. watch a movie? go buy it. Why is it so hard to pay to watch the Sox?

It's less expensive than any other professional major league sport, at least in Chicago.

[NWINFan]

I am only one fan, but if they add any more teams to the playoffs, I will lose interest. The regular season is supposed to mean something.  This will only cheapen it.

One thing that was great about MLB is that it was different than other sports. Making it similar to the NBA of NHL is a dumb idea. And playing the World Series on the eve of November is also dumb. MLB can shove this crap.

[Southwest Sider]

6 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

I am only one fan, but if they add any more teams to the playoffs, I will lose interest. The regular season is supposed to mean something.  This will only cheapen it.

One thing that was great about MLB is that it was different than other sports. Making it similar to the NBA of NHL is a dumb idea. And playing the World Series on the eve of November is also dumb. MLB can shove this crap.

Alright, I expect you to "lose interest" in the playoffs should the Sox benefit from this change ever. Go ahead, try. 

The regular season will still mean something. You will usually need to win more games than to lose to earn a playoff chance. 

I'd argue it doesn't cheapen the regular season at all. More teams will decide to compete since there will be more spots available. What's cheapening the regular season right now is teams like the Royals, Tigers, Orioles and what was our beloved White Sox for several years giving away free wins to other teams by fielding garbage teams. In your opinion, what cheapens the regular season more? Teams who basically forfeit games or adding more playoff spots, giving incentive to teams to compete? I'd argue for the former.

MLB is still different from other sports in so many ways. It is still great, it is still going to be great, and unless they add hoops or ice to the ballparks, will still be able to differentiate itself plenty from the NBA or NHL.

 

[Dick Allen]

I do think half the teams making the playoffs is too many, especially the randomness of winning baseball games, where even in a 7 game series, the best teams doesn't always win. I like it like it is. Don't make it too gimmicky.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Dick Allen

[ChiSox59]

14 teams making the playoffs is gross. 

What is even more gross is getting 2nd in the AL and then matching up with the 6th place team in a 3 game series.  Anything can happen in a 3 game series in baseball, and this would devalue the regular season so damn much.  I hate it.  

I hated adding a 2nd WC, and I hate this even more.  If you're going to go this route, you have to ditch divisions and leagues, and go to a full balanced schedule.   

[chitownsportsfan]

5 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

14 teams making the playoffs is gross. 

What is even more gross is getting 2nd in the AL and then matching up with the 6th place team in a 3 game series.  Anything can happen in a 3 game series in baseball, and this would devalue the regular season so damn much.  I hate it.  

I hated adding a 2nd WC, and I hate this even more.  If you're going to go this route, you have to ditch divisions and leagues, and go to a full balanced schedule.   

How much value does the regular season have when 1/2 the teams aren't competing?  This fetishization of having the 10 or so teams competing for a playoff spot fattening up on clubs that will lose 90+ games doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

[SonofaRoache]

19 hours ago, demonbluess said:

I kind of loathe the NBA style "everyone gets in" mentality. It really dilutes the regular season importance. 

I know I sound like a crabby old person but I think the butter zone was 4 per league for me. 3 division winners a 1 wild card. I see why they expanded but it should still mean something to get in. 

 

The NBA system is fine, people just dont understand its purpose. Only half the teams make it, and they play 7 game series now. The top 3 teams in each conference are essentially rewarded with lesser opponents to tune up for difficult series that follow. It's like in college basketball how the top 3 seeds get tune ups. Baseball playoffs are rough because the top two teams typically play opponents just as good as they are in the first round. Since only 4 teams make the playoffs, you are only allowing the elites to play. The same is true for the NFL to a lesser degree. This is why you really don't know who is gonna win it all. 

[SonofaRoache]

We as Sox fans should embrace this idea. It increases our odds drastically. We should also hope for the removal of the service time manipulation as we got all of ours out of the way in time. We don't want KC, Cleveland, and Detroit benefiting. 

[mqr]

Just now, SonofaRoache said:

We as Sox fans should embrace this idea. It increases our odds drastically.

This is the exact reason I think it sucks. Rewarding teams for being mediocre. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by mqr

[Quin]

7 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

14 teams making the playoffs is gross. 

What is even more gross is getting 2nd in the AL and then matching up with the 6th place team in a 3 game series.  Anything can happen in a 3 game series in baseball, and this would devalue the regular season so damn much.  I hate it.  

I hated adding a 2nd WC, and I hate this even more.  If you're going to go this route, you have to ditch divisions and leagues, and go to a full balanced schedule.   

Or at least more balanced. Right now we just play the Tigers, Royals, Twins, and Indians too damn much. Instead of 19 against each divisional opponent and 7 against the other AL teams, do 16 against the AL Central and 10 against the AL East and AL West.

[ptatc]

13 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

How much value does the regular season have when 1/2 the teams aren't competing?  This fetishization of having the 10 or so teams competing for a playoff spot fattening up on clubs that will lose 90+ games doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

I agree. they need to find someway to keep teams from "rebuilding" and throwing the season.

[pcq]

Lengthening the season at all, smacks of money-grabbing. Perhaps neutral warm sites should be considered. This does not sound praticial.

[mqr]

8 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

The NBA system is fine, people just dont understand its purpose. Only half the teams make it, and they play 7 game series now. The top 3 teams in each conference are essentially rewarded with lesser opponents to tune up for difficult series that follow. It's like in college basketball how the top 3 seeds get tune ups. Baseball playoffs are rough because the top two teams typically play opponents just as good as they are in the first round. Since only 4 teams make the playoffs, you are only allowing the elites to play. The same is true for the NFL to a lesser degree. This is why you really don't know who is gonna win it all. 

Baseball is not Basketball. The 14th best team in baseball would beat the best team probably 30 or 40 percent of the time. The reason the playoffs are a crapshoot is because baseball as a game is random as hell, not because top teams don't get a tune up or whatever the hell your talking about. 

[SonofaRoache]

8 minutes ago, mqr said:

This is the exact reason I think it sucks. Rewarding teams for being mediocre. 

You aren't rewarding them. They will typically get beat in round 1 or the play in game. When you play 162 games, if you win 90 you should have a shot to play in the post season. You shouldn't have a feeling of doing all of that work for nothing. I wouldn't consider teams that win 90 to be mediocre. I believe 78 to 85 wins is mediocre.  

[mqr]

3 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

You aren't rewarding them. They will typically get beat in round 1 or the play in game. When you play 162 games, if you win 90 you should have a shot to play in the post season. You shouldn't have a feeling of doing all of that work for nothing. I wouldn't consider teams that win 90 to be mediocre. I believe 78 to 85 wins is mediocre.  

Math, and the way baseball works, should tell you you can't just wave away any team in baseball in a one game play-in or a 3 game series. 

[flavum]

Before expansion, they should start with this...

• Eliminate divisions, two 15-team leagues
• Play a close to balanced schedule, reduce interleague play to 12 games, and 150 games in the league
• Top 6 teams make the playoffs, 1 and 2 get a bye, 3 hosts 6, 4 hosts 5 in a best-of-3 at the higher seeds park
• Worst remaining seed plays 1, and the other two play in the Division Series (or whatever they want to call it)

Start there. Try to be a national sport, and not a regional sport. That's MLBs problem right now.

If this fails, do whatever you want. Add teams. Realign. Have that stupid rule with batters on 2nd base in extra innings. Whatever. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by flavum

[SonofaRoache]

Just now, mqr said:

Math, and the way baseball works, should tell you you can't just wave away any team in baseball in a one game play-in or a 3 game series. 

Actually you almost can. Fans forget regular season baseball ain't the playoffs. The difference is matchups and focusing real hard on your opponent. If we played Houston and the Nats...

 

Cole vs Gio

Verlander vs Nova

Greinke vs Lopez

 

Sherzer vs Gio

Strasburg vs Nova

Corbin vs Lopez

 

Pitching matchups would wreck us, and this is before you get to the lineups and bullpen. 

[mqr]

2 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Actually you almost can. Fans forget regular season baseball ain't the playoffs. The difference is matchups and focusing real hard on your opponent. If we played Houston and the Nats...

 

Cole vs Gio

Verlander vs Nova

Greinke vs Lopez

 

Sherzer vs Gio

Strasburg vs Nova

Corbin vs Lopez

 

Pitching matchups would wreck us, and this is before you get to the lineups and bullpen. 

You're right. Good players never play poorly and average ones never play better. 

[SonofaRoache]

5 minutes ago, mqr said:

You're right. Good players never play poorly and average ones never play better. 

What makes a great player great, is that the odds of them performing poorly over an extended stretch is much lesser than an average player. What makes great teams great, is that they have so many good players, that even if some struggle, others can pick up the slack. On an average or bad team, if the few good players struggle, there is no shot. Each player would have to play great with little room for error. For instance, if Yoan and Eloy were neutralized, how would we score? If Gio has a Cubs moment, who picks it up for him? 

[he gone.]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

It's less expensive than any other professional major league sport, at least in Chicago.

True. Sox for sure. We haven't won in a decade either - so we're going to have to get used to paying more soon, but yes for right now I've found Sox games extremely affordable & fun. There's even a part of me that's going to miss the ease of beer lines, bathroom lines, putting my feet up, a seat in between me, etc. 

I'm not sure people who are fans of the Cubs though would agree. And yes, I also get that the NBA and NFL and NHL tickets cost more ... but there is also a bit of supply and demand going on there. Half the games in NHL and NBA, half the sized arena .. NFL has 8 games, etc. So there are other factors - which in theory should actually help baseball be more popular. 

 

I still think the biggest issue is the duration. I personally am a HUGE baseball fan. I think all of us on a message board in February would qualify. I am in several fantasy leagues, get the MLB package every year, watch random games, etc. However when it comes to the playoffs and are supposed to be the BEST games? I find myself losing interest sometimes when the games are clocking in at almost 4 hours and don't end until 11-12pm. That's just not a sustainable product. If the games started at 6:30CST and lasted 2hr 30m you'd be bringing in more kids which are ultimately the lifeline and future of sports. 

If I was the Sox - and I'm sure theres a whole set of guidelines I'm unaware about - but I'd have game time start at 6:30pm CST during school -- so April through memorial day. I'd do my best to tell my batters and pitchers to shorten the game (i.e. no steppign out of the box, stepping off mound, etc.) While everybody else is moving so slow, I'd use it as an advantage both in the real world to drive tickets and viewership, as in baseball. I have no doubt some of Buehrle's success came from keeping batters off balance by firing the ball in quickly and taking them off their routine.