16 Team Playoffs in 2020 Agreed Upon

[Buehrle>Wood]

This is terrible. So lame

[Chisoxfn]

39 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is one of the worst takes I've read on a baseball board in a while.

Play 162 games so you can lose in a 3 game series to a team that won 20+ fewer games than you.

I legitimately wonder if the 162 game season is the real relic in this and whether we end up with more of a ~100 game season with expanded playoffs in the future.  Keep importance of regular season, but with more urgency - with added post-season excitement.  

[Chisoxfn]

30 minutes ago, bmags said:

I think there should be a lot of playoff teams but I’d also be good with the teams in both leagues with best record getting placed like straight in LCS honestly

Yeah - I think the one miss they had was preventing a bye for the upper echelon teams.  Not fair if you were the best team all season and you get knocked out in a fluky 3 game set.  

[SoxBlanco]

2 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Yeah - I think the one miss they had was preventing a bye for the upper echelon teams.  Not fair if you were the best team all season and you get knocked out in a fluky 3 game set.  

I don’t disagree with you at all, but this has me wondering how many times the top seed in the AL or NL has gone down 2-0 or 2-1 in the first round, only to come back and win the series. I’m guessing it has not happened very often. 

[caulfield12]

At least they should keep either 154 or no less than 140 games.

The length of the season and the pace of a 6 month season has always been one of the most unique aspects of the sports...and playing from spring through summer into the late fall.   No other team sport has that unique combination, other than soccer.

If nothing else, the White Sox and Padres break their playoff-less strings and Thad Bosley has to develop a new and improved line of attack on ownership.
 

In actuality, this is THE one season where White Sox attendance will be the least discussed issue surrounding the organization.  That’s going to be a quite pleasant change.   Wish Farmio was around to witness it after suffering through the last decade.

Edited July 23, 2020 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

55 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is one of the worst takes I've read on a baseball board in a while.

Play 162 games so you can lose in a 3 game series to a team that won 20+ fewer games than you.

College plays a 40 game schedule to lose once, and people love it.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

College plays a 40 game schedule to lose once, and people love it.

College basketball teams play 30-35 games, not 40.

30 is 18% of 162.

People like the college basketball format because unknown schools and the little guy can upset the giants. In professional sports, everyone is a giant. 

Basketball upsets are a lot less likely; it's why 16 teams can make it in the NBA and the 1 seed has a near bye. In baseball, the difference between the best and the worst in the playoffs - in a short series format - is a lot less than in the NBA.

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

College basketball teams play 30-35 games, not 40.

30 is 18% of 162.

People like the college basketball format because unknown schools and the little guy can upset the giants. In professional sports, everyone is a giant. 

Basketball upsets are a lot less likely; it's why 16 teams can make it in the NBA and the 1 seed has a near bye. In baseball, the difference between the best and the worst in the playoffs - in a short series format - is a lot less than in the NBA.

Months of playoffs aren't nearly as entertaining as chaos is.  

[SoxBlanco]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

College basketball teams play 30-35 games, not 40.

30 is 18% of 162.

People like the college basketball format because unknown schools and the little guy can upset the giants. In professional sports, everyone is a giant. 

Basketball upsets are a lot less likely; it's why 16 teams can make it in the NBA and the 1 seed has a near bye. In baseball, the difference between the best and the worst in the playoffs - in a short series format - is a lot less than in the NBA.

Ray Ray, is there any way to find out how many times the #1 seed in the AL or NL has won their first playoff series after being down 2 games to 1? If it barely happens, then what you are arguing against (which I think is a valid complaint) won’t really come into play. I feel like the top seeds usually win two of the first three games anyway. And when they don’t, they probably lose the series anyway. How many first round series involving a top seed will have an outcome that will be different if the series is 3 games as opposed to 5?

[Vulture]

26 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

I don’t disagree with you at all, but this has me wondering how many times the top seed in the AL or NL has gone down 2-0 or 2-1 in the first round, only to come back and win the series. I’m guessing it has not happened very often. 

I don't know about on average, but last year both national league divisional series were won by teams down 2-1, including obviously the champion Nationals. 

[SoxBlanco]

4 minutes ago, Vulture said:

I don't know about on average, but last year both national league divisional series were won by teams down 2-1, including obviously the champion Nationals. 

Yes, but people are specifically complaining that a top seed could play 162 games as the best team only to lose in a three game series. Neither top seed would have been eliminated last year if it was only a 3 game series in the first round. In fact, the new format would have actually helped the top seeded Dodgers!

[SonofaRoache]

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Months of playoffs aren't nearly as entertaining as chaos is.  

There are more elite teams in CBB. One giant might lose in the first or second round but at the end of the day, the best teams are there at the end. Basketball is also a more personal sport and an individual can impose their will on the game every minute. Whereas in baseball, Mike Trout gets 5 chances to score per game, and can only make defensive plays if the ball bounces his way. Baseball isn't consistent from one game to the next, that is why a CBB style playoff would suck. Baseball relies on things averaging out over 4 to 7 games. 

[SonofaRoache]

8 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Yes, but people are specifically complaining that a top seed could play 162 games as the best team only to lose in a three game series. Neither top seed would have been eliminated last year if it was only a 3 game series in the first round. In fact, the new format would have actually helped the top seeded Dodgers!

I think the criticism of the 3 game series stems from game 1 of the series. Let's say the Sox get the 8th seed and Yankees get the 1. If Giolito has a great game and outduels the Yankees best, which is very possible, the Yankees are in trouble. They face elimination because they got beat by a team with a great ace. Now the Yankees have to win game 2. A five game series and to a bigger degree, 7 game series, takes a lot of the fluke out of it. 

[caulfield12]

And yet the sudden death wild card games have been quite popular.

Think back to the last ten days of the 2008 season.

Some combination that protects the top 2-3 teams while giving more shots at underdog teams is a nice combination.

 

I mean, it’s not like the Twins’ fans enjoy getting demolished any more by the Yankees in 2, 3 or 4 games...

Edited July 23, 2020 by caulfield12

[SoxBlanco]

22 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

I think the criticism of the 3 game series stems from game 1 of the series. Let's say the Sox get the 8th seed and Yankees get the 1. If Giolito has a great game and outduels the Yankees best, which is very possible, the Yankees are in trouble. They face elimination because they got beat by a team with a great ace. Now the Yankees have to win game 2. A five game series and to a bigger degree, 7 game series, takes a lot of the fluke out of it. 

Like I’ve said to other posts, I don’t disagree with what you and others are saying. I just don’t think it’ll make a difference as much as people think. 

In the scenario described above, the Yankees better win game 2 even if it was a 5 game series because it’s not likely they would win the next three games. 

I guess what I’m saying is that although I agree with the sentiment that a top seed shouldn’t have to play a 3 game series, I don’t think it will really make much of a difference. And I bet if we looked at the history of first round series of top seeds, we would see that it wouldn’t make much of a difference. In fact, a 3 game series might even help the top seed, as seen last year with the Dodgers. 

[caulfield12]

1 minute ago, SoxBlanco said:

Like I’ve said to other posts, I don’t disagree with what you and others are saying. I just don’t think it’ll make a difference as much as people think. 

In the scenario described above, the Yankees better win game 2 even if it was a 5 game series because it’s not likely they would win the next three games. 

I guess what I’m saying is that although I agree with the sentiment that a top seed shouldn’t have to play a 3 game series, I don’t think it will really make much of a difference. And I bet if we looked at the history of first round series of top seeds, we would see that it wouldn’t make much of a difference. In fact, a 3 game series might even help the top seed, as seen last year with the Dodgers. 

Obviously also comes down to depth of pitching vs. having two guys like Schilling and Big Unit that could go so often in a seven gamer, or, another example, Bumgarner in 2014 vs. the Royals.

[Vulture]

32 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

And yet the sudden death wild card games have been quite popular.

That's because the one game playoffs are among teams that failed to win their division to begin with. If it was a 100 win one seed losing an eight seed, it would be a travesty

Edited July 24, 2020 by Vulture

[SonofaRoache]

21 minutes ago, Vulture said:

That's because the one game playoffs are among teams that failed to win their division to begin with. If it was a 100 win one seed losing an eight seed, it would be a travesty

Exactly. This is the best thing that could've happened for the White Sox. It won't be 8 next year when we can win the division outright. Expanding the playoffs this year to 8 gives us a real chance to get our guys into the post season a year early. That experience will hopefully prepare them for next season's playoffs. 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

7 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

I legitimately wonder if the 162 game season is the real relic in this and whether we end up with more of a ~100 game season with expanded playoffs in the future.  Keep importance of regular season, but with more urgency - with added post-season excitement.  

162 is definitely a relic and shortening it would definitely help ease the strain on players after that grind which wrecks a lot of pitchers for the following season. Lowering it to 100 though seems unlikely since then players salaries probably go down drastically. If they keep escalating it's always going to be the richest teams competing for the championship . Expanded playoffs in baseball keeps the mid and low budget teams theoretically in the hunt longer. Also a shorter season means baseball in November should become a thing of the past . We can still have the Fall classic if the season ends in late summer.

All these high salaries along with a larger than ever divide between the classes just will keep pricing out people who can no longer afford to go to a game. Maybe baseball can survive without fans but I think that they would rather thrive than just survive. The problem is the players and the owners only want to get richer and that will ultimately be a huge problem .

But I am always surprised that anyone really cares about how the playoffs are formulated for this year.All I give a shit about is that the Sox have a good team again and more teams in means more chances at a title. For a team that hasn't made the playoffs in 12 years and hasn't been to the playoffs 2 years in a row in it's long history, I'll take it, no matter how baseball cuts the pie.

Edited July 24, 2020 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[caulfield12]

36 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

162 is definitely a relic and shortening it would definitely help ease the strain on players after that grind which wrecks a lot of pitchers for the following season. Lowering it to 100 though seems unlikely since then players salaries probably go down drastically. If they keep escalating it's always going to be the richest teams competing for the championship . Expanded playoffs in baseball keeps the mid and low budget teams theoretically in the hunt longer. Also a shorter season means baseball in November should become a thing of the past . We can still have the Fall classic if the season ends in late summer.

All these high salaries along with a larger than ever divide between the classes just will keep pricing out people who can no longer afford to go to a game. Maybe baseball can survive without fans but I think that they would rather thrive than just survive. The problem is the players and the owners only want to get richer and that will ultimately be a huge problem .

But I am always surprised that anyone really cares about how the playoffs are formulated for this year.All I give a shit about is that the Sox have a good team again and more teams in means more chances at a title. For a team that hasn't made the playoffs in 12 years and hasn't been to the playoffs 2 years in a row in it's long history, I'll take it, no matter how baseball cuts the pie.

But is there any entertainment product that has really been forced to compete/become more affordable?

I guess you can argue internet rates, airline tickets/vacation packages and cable TV, but if you look at things like concert tickets, the costs across pretty much any sports product (even the lower/est tier seats), etc., movie tickets, they've all been rapidly advancing since at least the 1980's.

Maybe with all the industries related to work having to adjust (e.g., less commercial real estate demand, more WFH, less need for business clothing or even eating out in general)...everyone's going to have adjustments eventually, right?

What's driving the salaries higher?  Continually increasing revenues....related to drivers outside of traditional metrics like attendance, souvenirs, concessions and parking, as well as the increasing number of billionaires or investment groups competing for professional sports franchises, that seems likely to continue as a trend as wealth/income inequality continues to separate the middle and upper class families as consumers, as well.

On the plus side, there are still more ways to take in the sport (setting aside the blackout rules) than ever before.

So, just like the cruise/tour/travel industries, the education industry and some of the other examples from above are going to have to adapt to survive, sports will, too, right?

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

So for the White Sox it call comes down to the series between the Indians/Twins/Sox.  With the schedule being 20 games versus those teams, whichever team can put up the best mark gets a HUGE leg up in the playoff run, especially with the 1/2 slots in the division making the playoffs.  Put up a 13-7 to 14-6 mark, you should be a shoo-in.  Put up a 7-13 mark, you are probably toast.

[ptatc]

17 hours ago, soxfan2014 said:

Kind of makes sense. Otherwise, why even have divisions in the first place? Essentially 1st and second place teams of each division and then 2 wild card teams.

Baseball is such a random sport compared to most because they depend so much on one player, the starting pitcher, AND the other team cant counter him with their best player in big situations. In football the quarterback can be countered by schemes or defending his favorite receiver with your best player. In baseball they have to bat in the order so in big situations they need to count on lesser players often.

Whether it's a 3 game series or a 9 game series. It's the luck of the draw. Obviously  in a longer series team depth and the increased chance the better players will hit but it's still a lot of luck and randomness. I prefer the longer season and longer series but whatever helps young fan interest and helps the game in the long run is fine with me because its baseball.

[NWINFan]

I don't like to see the playoffs diluted. I get no pleasure if my team gets in because everybody and his brother are getting in.

The regular season needs to be shortened some even under the current system. Playing the World Series in early November is absurd.

[hogan873]

I'm in the minority, I think.  I love the idea of expanded playoffs.  Even after this year, I'd like to see it.  What would make it even better are some rules around tanking.  If every team was somewhat competitive, we wouldn't be seeing teams essentially eliminated in June.  It's a big ask and would require salary caps for minimum and maximum.  Selfishly, though, I like the idea because it increases the chances of the Sox to make the playoffs.  The AL Central will be a tough division for a few years, and I'd hate to see the Sox finish with 90+ wins (in future seasons) and miss the playoffs.

[chitownsportsfan]

You might as well just flip a coin honestly.  In a 3 game series a 100-62 team against a 62-100 team will lose it roughly 35% of the time.  This is beyond parody imo of even the biggest Manfred doom porners, including me.