World Series - Braves v. Trashtros

[35thstreetswarm]

36 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Because the best team in a league of  8-10 teams each is a good season test. A format where over half the teams can be crowned "World Champions" going a few games over in October, after a mediocre 83-88 win season like TLR's pathetic Cardinal team or this year's shitty Atlanta team makes the entire season a farce.

If you don't see or have a problem with a meaningless 162 game season, you'll love the shit the owners have in store. Enjoy the never ending RSN fee increases and 81 game exhibition season ticket purchases.

With all due respect, that's not very precise.  A "good season test"?  What does that mean?  "Good" by what measure?  Why is best of 8 a "good" test, and best of 5 is worthless? 

More importantly, your solution hasn't addressed the problem of playoff randomness you identified.  If the grind of a long regular season is accurate in sorting out the "best teams" and a short playoff series is a meaningless "few games"/crapshoot, why end the season with playoffs at all?  You're not getting rid of your problem, you're just reshuffling the deck chairs.  All you've done is arbitrarily changed the number of teams in the playoffs.  

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Because the best team in a league of  8-10 teams each is a good season test. A format where over half the teams can be crowned "World Champions" going a few games over in October, after a mediocre 83-88 win season like TLR's pathetic Cardinal team or this year's shitty Atlanta team makes the entire season a farce.

If you don't see or have a problem with a meaningless 162 game season, you'll love the shit the owners have in store. Enjoy the never ending RSN fee increases and 81 game exhibition season ticket purchases.

The best tourney in US sports has 68 teams in it.

[South Side Hit Men]

6 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The best tourney in US sports has 68 teams in it.

If there was no wagering/bracket pools, there would be as much interest in “March Madness” as there is CBB’s regular season, which is MLB’s future, though MLB tacks on 130 extra meaningless (blacked out) games.

I guess I’ll be satisfied with Rotisserie, if I continue following.

 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, South Side Hit Men said:

If there was no wagering/bracket pools, there would be as much interest in “March Madness” as there is CBB’s regular season, which is MLB’s future, though MLB tacks on 130 extra meaningless (blacked out) games.

I guess I’ll be satisfied with Rotisserie, if I continue following.

 

March Madness is great precisely because the tournament isn't a slog that is set up to make sure that the best teams always win.  Its 35 games of huge upsets and random surprises.  That is literally the charm of it.  MLB actually has one of the better playoffs for the same reason, in that the "best" team doesn't always win.  If only the best team over 162 can win, why do we have a playoffs in the first place?  I want some excitement and some doubt.  Chalk is boring.  Get the teams in and watch the craziness begin.

[South Side Hit Men]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

March Madness is great precisely because the tournament isn't a slog that is set up to make sure that the best teams always win.  Its 35 games of huge upsets and random surprises.  That is literally the charm of it.  MLB actually has one of the better playoffs for the same reason, in that the "best" team doesn't always win.  If only the best team over 162 can win, why do we have a playoffs in the first place?  I want some excitement and some doubt.  Chalk is boring.  Get the teams in and watch the craziness begin.

There may be a few Cinderella stories, but in the win the chalk / best teams always nearly wins the NCAA title. Kansas 1988 was the last major upset.

In MLB’s version, any garbage team including teams barely over .500 can  win 3 extra games over 3 weeks. Expanding the playoffs further substantially increases the probability a mediocre team like Atlanta or the 83 win Cardinals will win in future years.

Any team, even a below .500 team can win for a few weeks. The Cubs were in first at the end of May. Owners will try even less to bother spending on a quality team. More carrots, less quality. 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, South Side Hit Men said:

There may be a few Cinderella stories, but in the win the chalk / best teams always nearly wins the NCAA title. Kansas 1988 was the last major upset.

In MLB’s version, any garbage team including teams barely over .500 can  win 3 extra games over 3 weeks. Expanding the playoffs further substantially increases the probability a mediocre team like Atlanta or the 83 win Cardinals will win in future years.

Any team, even a below .500 team can win for a few weeks. The Cubs were in first at the end of May. Owners will try even less to bother spending on a quality team. More carrots, less quality. 

If the top team can't beat them, why should they be champion?  Again, why play the playoffs if the goal is just to recognize the best team in the 162?  And the idea that teams won't spend is nonsense.  The playoffs are bigger than they have ever been, has that stopped the Dodgers from spending like crazy?  If anything is adds extra pressure to teams who aren't on the top level to NOT tank.  The smaller the playoffs are, the better reason you have to tank seasons to try to build up enough to get there.

[South Side Hit Men]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

If the top team can't beat them, why should they be champion?  Again, why play the playoffs if the goal is just to recognize the best team in the 162?  And the idea that teams won't spend is nonsense.  The playoffs are bigger than they have ever been, has that stopped the Dodgers from spending like crazy?  If anything is adds extra pressure to teams who aren't on the top level to NOT tank.  The smaller the playoffs are, the better reason you have to tank seasons to try to build up enough to get there.

Tanking became a thing only after expanded playoffs and more owners embraced the Jerry carrot philosophy. It substantially weakens the 162 game product. Can’t sugar coated that fact.  MLB will continue to lose regular season attendance, and not increase postseason interest.

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Tanking became a thing only after expanded playoffs and more owners embraced the Jerry carrot philosophy. It substantially weakens the 162 game product. Can’t sugar coated that fact.  MLB will continue to lose regular season attendance, and not increase postseason interest.

BS, tanking has always been a thing.  Its just actually acknowledge now.

[South Side Hit Men]

6 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

BS, tanking has always been a thing.  Its just actually acknowledge now.

BS. In any sport there are good and bad teams, including baseball. The difference is since Moneyball, FO are now brazen enough to sell fans that sucking for years and spending little to nothing on players is virtuous and brilliant. There were no competitive advantages to incentivize owners to spend little to nothing the first century of professional baseball (into the 1960s). Teams fielding losing teams made less at the gate. Their alternative was to spend more (players, scouts, farm teams) to attempt to win more, and ultimately earn more at the gate. 

There were no "luxury taxes", no international player spending caps, no MLB amateur drafts or spending limits on amateur athletes, no vast revenue sharing of massive television, internet, and other revenue streams, beyond the standard split of the live gate ticket receipts, for which a shitty team ended up with little both home and away.

By increasing the number of playoff teams, from two out of 16 to 20 teams, to fourteen/sixteen + out of 30, it gives owners further reason to spend less, or for some teams even less than their annual league welfare checks (small market welfare payments) and league "socialist" 30 team 30 share revenue payments. It further incentivizes a growing number of "Cadillac Lamborghini Welfare Queen" owners of teams leeching and profiting as Congressionally awarded monopoly parasites on a host of live bodies, including taxpayers, cable television customers who have no interest in watching or paying for their shitty RSN, and amateur broadcasts of announcers in a bunker watching computer screens instead of being at the game, and the ever shrinking number of teams actually attempting to put a quality product on the field.

Edited November 5, 2021 by South Side Hit Men

[southsider2k5]

8 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

BS. In any sport there are good and bad teams, including baseball. The difference is since Moneyball, FO are now brazen enough to sell fans that sucking for years and spending little to nothing on players is virtuous and brilliant. There were no competitive advantages to incentivize owners to spend little to nothing the first century of professional baseball (into the 1960s). Teams fielding losing teams made less at the gate. Their alternative was to spend more (players, scouts, farm teams) to attempt to win more, and ultimately earn more at the gate. 

There were no "luxury taxes", no international player spending caps, no MLB amateur drafts or spending limits on amateur athletes, no vast revenue sharing of massive television, internet, and other revenue streams, beyond the standard split of the live gate ticket receipts, for which a shitty team ended up with little both home and away.

By increasing the number of playoff teams, from two out of 16 to 20 teams, to fourteen/sixteen + out of 30, it gives owners further reason to spend less, or for some teams even less than their annual league welfare checks (small market welfare payments) and league "socialist" 30 team 30 share revenue payments. It further incentivizes a growing number of "Cadillac Lamborghini Welfare Queen" owners of teams leeching and profiting as Congressionally awarded monopoly parasites on a host of live bodies, including taxpayers, cable television customers who have no interest in watching or paying for their shitty RSN, and amateur broadcasts of announcers in a bunker watching computer screens instead of being at the game, and the ever shrinking number of teams actually attempting to put a quality product on the field.

Yet the results argue otherwise.