16 team playoffs here to stay?

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, JuliusO1274 said:

Local baseball ratings are much better for MLB than NBA.

Only very recently. In general not as much. 

[South Side Hit Men]

6 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

If they go to 16, they could do the following. 

Seed 7-8 play a 3 game series in the Wild Card Round. (No days off, higher seed has homefield)

Winner plays in the next round, which is a best of 5 round.
2-7
3-6
4-5

1 Seed has a bye - they get roughly 9 days off, which might be a lot but I think it's better than playing and players will adjust.

Divisional Round best of 7
1 v Lowest Seed
3 v 4

I think that benefits the 1 seed a lot, but some would argue the time off is bad.

They will never have byes for 1 or 2 teams. Owners don't give a rats ass about the competition, they care about money. Period. Jerry would rather have a lower seed and asses in the stands than the number 1 seed.

Plus, unlike the other sports, while a long layoff (9 days), gives your players rest, it can hurt a pitchers control and a hitters timing. 3 Days is fine, which is why I prefer a 3 team format, all division champions, #2 vs. #3 with no travel for 3 games, winner plays a rested but not stale #1 seed, again all home games. Now THAT would give teams incentive to win, but once again owners would never go for that either.

The EPL and other leagues with season round robins and no playoffs AND RELEGATION is the best format for professional competition. Want to tank, send the team to AAA the next season to work things out. Would really give teams an incentive to field competitive teams. American owners would never go for it, their monopolies and tax payer funded stadiums guarantee profit, win or lose.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

15 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Only very recently. In general not as much. 

Baseball's problem has to do with access; they're entire profit model revolves around local television deals. The season is so long, the national contracts just don't matter as much. 

Baseball blacks itself out on streaming platforms locally and those local blackouts which effects certain parts of the country significantly, prevents people from watching their product. They don't market their stars because they know they're a regional/local game because they're entire viewership model revolves around that concept. By choice.. and design, as cable has funded the boom of the sport and tv contracts have made teams so much money. That said, it has ostracized the younger viewer who has gone off cable and gone towards the net to view games. They can't even watch their local or regional teams, so why bother having a team to root for?

Edited September 16, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[ptatc]

7 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

They will never have byes for 1 or 2 teams. Owners don't give a rats ass about the competition, they care about money. Period. Jerry would rather have a lower seed and asses in the stands than the number 1 seed.

Plus, unlike the other sports, while a long layoff (9 days), gives your players rest, it can hurt a pitchers control and a hitters timing. 3 Days is fine, which is why I prefer a 3 team format, all division champions, #2 vs. #3 with no travel for 3 games, winner plays a rested but not stale #1 seed, again all home games. Now THAT would give teams incentive to win, but once again owners would never go for that either.

The EPL and other leagues with season round robins and no playoffs AND RELEGATION is the best format for professional competition. Want to tank, send the team to AAA the next season to work things out. Would really give teams an incentive to field competitive teams. American owners would never go for it, their monopolies and tax payer funded stadiums guarantee profit, win or lose.

The EPL is the epitome of competition. That's why Man U was won the championship 14 out of the last 30 years or so. 

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Baseball's problem has to do with access; they're entire profit model revolves around local television deals. The season is so long, the national contracts just don't matter as much. 

Baseball blacks itself out on streaming platforms locally and those local blackouts which effects certain parts of the country significantly, prevents people from watching their product. They don't market their stars because they know they're a regional/local game because they're entire viewership model revolves around that concept. By choice.. and design, as cable has funded the boom of the sport and tv contracts have made teams so much money. That said, it has ostracized the younger viewer who has gone off cable and gone towards the net to view games. They can't even watch their local or regional teams, so why bother having a team to root for?

Exactly. If the team was in the playoffs or at least in contention more it would drive up the interest.

[South Side Hit Men]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

The EPL is the epitome of competition. That's why Man U was won the championship 14 out of the last 30 years or so. 

Well, my Liverpool is back, hopefully to stay. (Grandmother and cousins born and raised there, many still there though most like the Protestant (though working class) Everton squad.

[ptatc]

Just now, South Side Hit Men said:

Well, my Liverpool is back, hopefully to stay. (Grandmother and cousins born and raised there, many still there though most like the Protestant (though working class) Everton squad.

That's just it. It's not really different from baseball where there a few dominant teams and some hopeful rebuilding teams. The relegation really doesn't make it more competitive. It's like any others without salary caps, those with the money win.  I'm all for rooting for the local team as evidenced by my Sox fandom regardless of what teams I've worked for.

[Balta1701]

Just so someone says this...yeah going "1 game and done" in the wild card is tough for the teams, but gosh those were some of the best games of the year to watch. 

[asindc]

4 hours ago, ptatc said:

In case you haven't seen the ratings for baseball compared to the NFL and NBA, there is no well enough to leave alone.

Fair enough, but I don’t see this as being a solution to that.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, asindc said:

Fair enough, but I don’t see this as being a solution to that.

I think it will help. There will be increased fans interest with a chance to go to the playoffs to win the World Series. Think about any pennant race. It drives interest.

[ptatc]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Just so someone says this...yeah going "1 game and done" in the wild card is tough for the teams, but gosh those were some of the best games of the year to watch. 

Agreed. It's all about driving up the interest in the sport, which has been decreasing.

[ptatc]

18 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Baseball's problem has to do with access; they're entire profit model revolves around local television deals. The season is so long, the national contracts just don't matter as much. 

Baseball blacks itself out on streaming platforms locally and those local blackouts which effects certain parts of the country significantly, prevents people from watching their product. They don't market their stars because they know they're a regional/local game because they're entire viewership model revolves around that concept. By choice.. and design, as cable has funded the boom of the sport and tv contracts have made teams so much money. That said, it has ostracized the younger viewer who has gone off cable and gone towards the net to view games. They can't even watch their local or regional teams, so why bother having a team to root for?

It's doesn't seem to bother the NFL to have people without the NFL network to miss the Thursday night games as the season goes on.

[harkness99]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

That is exactly right. Teams going crazy on payroll with the exception of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and perhaps Cubs will be over. You won’t  need a 100 win roster, and why risk the money to try to put one together? Best of 3 in baseball, anything can happen especially if the underdog has one or two really good starters.

I agree with most of what you say - but this is a rare time I'm not seeing it.

Because that is basically the same as it's always been,.... those teams spend big - most others try to do win without spending big.  It's not any different.

Edited September 16, 2020 by harkness99

[South Side Hit Men]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

That's just it. It's not really different from baseball where there a few dominant teams and some hopeful rebuilding teams. The relegation really doesn't make it more competitive. It's like any others without salary caps, those with the money win.  I'm all for rooting for the local team as evidenced by my Sox fandom regardless of what teams I've worked for.

Agree with the top of the table (though Leicester City did break through $$$ sure helps), but the bottom of the table really gives incentive to try hard to retain the portion of revenue they received.

MLB teams have perverse incentives to lose / spend least, since the majority of revenue is "earned", regardless of success on the field.  (National TV, MLB.com, "competitive balance tax" which is contractually obligated to go to payroll but clearly doesn't).

Winning baseball teams actually hurts net profit, unless you can significantly increase revenue/attendance to offset the added payroll. Hence the lone one advancing playoff team of Reinsdorf's 40 year (and sadly counting) tenure. Hope you liked 40 years of carrots !

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Agreed. It's all about driving up the interest in the sport, which has been decreasing.

It would become more like the NFL in that way. The playoff droughts will be a lot shorter obviously. There still will be some teams that will almost always be good and a few that will almost always be bad, and the rest will be jockeying for playoff position on an almost yearly basis. The thing is, the playoffs will be a bigger crapshoot than any sport except maybe hockey, so it would be interesting, I do think it will cheapen winning a division, although in the future you won’t be playing in empty stadiums so maybe playing the best of 3 all at home will be a huge advantage.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Agree with the top of the table (though Leicester City did break through $$$ sure helps), but the bottom of the table really gives incentive to try hard to retain the portion of revenue they received.

MLB teams have perverse incentives to lose / spend least, since the majority of revenue is "earned", regardless of success on the field.  (National TV, MLB.com, "competitive balance tax" which is contractually obligated to go to payroll but clearly doesn't).

Winning baseball teams actually hurts net profit, unless you can significantly increase revenue/attendance to offset the added payroll. Hence the lone one advancing playoff team of Reinsdorf's 40 year (and sadly counting) tenure. Hope you liked 40 years of carrots !

This I agree with. They need to find a way to make the money the incentive. I've always pushed for a salary cap and floor to even the playing field.

I disagree totally with the last part. The revenues of the MLB varies so widely in MLB and there is such little revenue sharing that the system inherently favors the large markets. All of the other leagues have a much better revenue sharing system and salary caps that it evens the playing field.

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It would become more like the NFL in that way. The playoff droughts will be a lot shorter obviously. There still will be some teams that will almost always be good and a few that will almost always be bad, and the rest will be jockeying for playoff position on an almost yearly basis. The thing is, the playoffs will be a bigger crapshoot than any sport except maybe hockey, so it would be interesting, I do think it will cheapen winning a division, although in the future you won’t be playing in empty stadiums so maybe playing the best of 3 all at home will be a huge advantage.

It probably will cheapen winning the division if the first series stays at 3 games. But overall it would be better for the game. Look at all the interest generated here when the season started. Everyone was talking how to improve the team because the thought of the playoffs was in reach. The teams that are in or will be on the bubble will have the "games to clinch the playoffs" interest.

[South Side Hit Men]

7 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The revenues of the MLB varies so widely in MLB and there is such little revenue sharing that the system inherently favors the large markets. All of the other leagues have a much better revenue sharing system and salary caps that it evens the playing field.

Can you point to a source for this? I do agree the top teams have an advantage in terms of revenue, but my comments are geared to the "small/mid" market teams, several of which earn the highest profits for fielding lousy teams. I use Forbes for my frame of reference, and their return on invested capital. Big market teams sell for the most, so despite the fact they earn more revenue, they don't necessarily earn a higher % rate of return.

Hell, the White Sox are paying about a million less to Encarnacion and Mazara this season than what Jerry and partners paid for the team (setting aside inflation).

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by South Side Hit Men

[Dick Allen]

17 minutes ago, harkness99 said:

I agree with most of what you say - but this is a rare time I'm not seeing it.

Because that is basically the same as it's always been,.... those teams spend big - most others try to do win without spending big.  It's not any different.

Say the Sox bow out in the first round this year. If 8 teams make the playoffs in 2021, what is JRs incentive to make  a big financial commitment this winter know that , at best, he will have to win a 3 game series, which in baseball is pretty much a toss up most of the time?

There has to be some way they don’t take away the incentive of winning the division . Obviously, it doesn’t happen all of the time, but math and logic would suggest the better team wins a best of 7 match up more often than a best of 3. The one and done,I can see why a lot of people hate it, but the best of 3 isn’t that much better to where you take almost all the advantages of winning a division over 162 games away.  I always thought the one and done was genius because it added a playoff team and added one huge game. Those games were always fun to watch. The playoffs are such a crapshoot. The 2005 White Sox were 11-1, one of the most dominant postseason records ever, but they were one ball going through Tony Graffininos  legs,  a play he makes probably more than 99% of the time, and one improbable ElDuque performance from going out in round 1.

Edited September 16, 2020 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Can you point to a source for this? I do agree the top teams have an advantage in terms of revenue, but my comments are geared to the "small/mid" market teams, several of which earn the highest profits for fielding lousy teams. I use Forbes for my frame of reference, and their return on invested capital. Big market teams sell for the most, so despite the fact they earn more revenue, they don't necessarily earn a higher % rate of return.

Hell, the White Sox are paying about a million less to Encarnacion and Mazara this season than what Jerry paid for the team (setting aside inflation).

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

 

Just look at your own list. The smallest market teams are at the bottom and have revenues about a third of the bigger market teams. If you know you don't have the resources of the top 5 teams, what can you do to compete. Don't look at the value of the team as that isn't realized until they sell. Look at the revenues.

[turnin' two]

I hate it.  I think this is stupid.  I also think this was inevitable once they expanded for this year.  

 

We should also keep in mind, it isn't Rob Manfred's job to do what is best for baseball.  It is his job to do what is best for the owners.  

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

Say the Sox bow out in the first round this year. If 8 teams make the playoffs in 2021, what is JRs incentive to take a big financial commitment this winter know that , at best, he will have to win a 3 game series, which in baseball is pretty much a toss up most of the time?

There has to be some way they don’t take away the incentive of winning the division . Obviously, it doesn’t happen all of the time, but math and logic would suggest the better team wins a best of 7 match up more often than a best of 3. The one and done,I can see why a lot of people hate it, but the best of 3 isn’t that much better to where you take almost all the advantages of winning a division over 162 games away.  I always thought the one and done was genius because it added a playoff team and added one huge game. Those games were always fun to watch. The playoffs are such a crapshoot. The 2005 White Sox were 11-1, one of the most dominant postseason records ever, but they were one ball going through Tony Graffininos  legs,  a play he makes probably more than 99% of the time, and one improbable ElDuque performance from going out in round 1.

This is the best part about baseball and why it's so difficult to win on a consistent basis. It has more randomness than any others. Of course a 7 game series is going to be more selective than a 3 game. It does create more suspense and interest in the games. As someone else pointed out, the NCAA tournament is one of the most watched "sports" because of the one and done. however, most of the time the best teams still make it thorough. 

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

I hate it.  I think this is stupid.  I also think this was inevitable once they expanded for this year.  

 

We should also keep in mind, it isn't Rob Manfred's job to do what is best for baseball.  It is his job to do what is best for the owners.  

For this I think it is what is best for baseball. Maybe not the competition of the games but the best for the health of the game.

[South Side Hit Men]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Just look at your own list. The smallest market teams are at the bottom and have revenues about a third of the bigger market teams. If you know you don't have the resources of the top 5 teams, what can you do to compete. Don't look at the value of the team as that isn't realized until they sell. Look at the revenues.

I am looking at revenues, and revenues as a percentage of invested capital to purchase the team.

2019 Operating Income Rank / 2019 Record

• San Francisco #2 $96M / 77-85
• Pittsburgh #10 $66M / 69-93
• Chicago AL #11 $66M / 72-89
• Texas #12 $61M / 78-84
• Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in Orange County in Alta California in the United States of America in North America on Planet Earth #13 $61M / 72-90
• Baltimore #14 $57M / 54-108
• San Diego #15 $52M / 70-92

These seven teams in the top half of net profit sucked last year. They could have spent $10M-$50M less on payroll, negligibly impacted attendance, and it all would have increased Operating Profit. That in addition to the fact the smaller market teams cost far less to purchase, thereby increasing their ROI/ROE with a smaller operating profit.

Miami's net operating profit was an anomaly last year, but their profit typically exceeds what they spend on payroll. Tampa had a good record, but their profit was close to payroll, even if they stunk last year their net profit would have marginally suffered since their local revenue is near zero.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

I would be shocked if the first series in baseball involved the top seeds and was 3 games. There will be a wildcard round of some sort.