The MLB lockout is lifted!

[ChiSox59]

14 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Division series' are currently a 5 game format, right?  This would be adding 2 extra games potentially to the DS while adding the extra WCs.  Without drastically altering the regular season schedule or playing deep into November, I don't know what else they can do.

For sure - was moreso talking about adding games from the expanded teams. But yes, making the DS a 7 game series is a no brainer.  I've always hated it as a 5 game series.  

As far as 14 team proposals go, this is by far the best I've heard. 

[flavum]

No offense to Chuck, but there are no great 14 team postseason ideas.
Best they can do with 6-
worst division winner win total plays the 6-seed and the other two play each other in a single game elimination. 
 After that, the remaining worst regular season record plays the division winner with the highest win total. If ties, don’t pair up teams from same division if possible. 

 
 

[ChiSox59]

3 minutes ago, flavum said:

No offense to Chuck, but there are no great 14 team postseason ideas.
Best they can do with 6-
worst division winner win total plays the 6-seed and the other two play each other in a single game elimination. 
 After that, the remaining worst regular season record plays the division winner with the highest win total. If ties, don’t pair up teams from same division if possible. 

 
 

Chuck's 7 game proposal is better than that IMO.  Any scenario where a division winner is playing an around .500 team in a 1-3 game win or go home series is awful, IMO. 

[Harry Chappas]

47 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I definitely agree that this is a palatable 14 team format (as someone that staunchly opposes further playoff expansion).  As long as the division winners aren't getting fucked which totally cheapens the regular season, I can live with it.  Problem is - does this really move the needle much at all from the current format for the owners?  This is literally adding just 1 game per league to the playoff schedule. I don't think that is really what the owners are after with expansion - can't imagine those 2 extra games change the TV revenues all that much. 

The owners want more games.  The owners wouldn't care if it were a  two team best of 51 world series as long as they got the tv revenue.

The single game thing works if its Boston/New York if it is Miami/Pittsburgh nobody cares.  All playoffs are a gamble in this regard.

 

 

 

 

[flavum]

5 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

For sure - was moreso talking about adding games from the expanded teams. But yes, making the DS a 7 game series is a no brainer.  I've always hated it as a 5 game series.  

As far as 14 team proposals go, this is by far the best I've heard. 

See, I’m the opposite. I wouldn’t be against best of 3 in the wildcard, best of 5 in DS and CS; and make the World Series the only best of 7. The long series means it gives the casual fan more reason to tune out until the series is 2-2 if it gets there. 

[southsider2k5]

 

[ChiSox59]

Just now, flavum said:

See, I’m the opposite. I wouldn’t be against best of 3 in the wildcard, best of 5 in DS and CS; and make the World Series the only best of 7. The long series means it gives the casual fan more reason to tune out until the series is 2-2 if it gets there. 

Shrug.  I guess all this talk about catering to the causal fan or people who aren't interested in baseball is kind of dumb, IMO.  I get the idea of wanting to get more people interested in the game.  But people who hate baseball or find it boring aren't suddenly going to change to their tune due to some minor rule changes or expanded playoffs.  

[Balta1701]

Just now, flavum said:

See, I’m the opposite. I wouldn’t be against best of 3 in the wildcard, best of 5 in DS and CS; and make the World Series the only best of 7. The long series means it gives the casual fan more reason to tune out until the series is 2-2 if it gets there. 

I would hate it if a 106 win team like the Giants had to go into a best of 3 series like that. You’ll never get your best teams reaching the World Series and you’ll miss out on seeing matchups between the best teams at the end.

[CentralChamps21]

4 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

 

The single game thing works if its Boston/New York if it is Miami/Pittsburgh nobody cares.  All playoffs are a gamble in this regard.

 

This is the biggest problem with MLB. There are only a handful of teams that ever generate national attention. If the Royals play the Reds nobody watches outside those two markets. Contrast that with the NFL where you can get an AFC Championship game between the Chiefs and Bengals that is a must-watch event.

MLB needs a system where the Royals and Reds are both willing and able to sign star free agents, or at the very least keep the ones they develop.

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said:

This is the biggest problem with MLB. There are only a handful of teams that ever generate national attention. If the Royals play the Reds nobody watches outside those two markets. Contrast that with the NFL where you can get an AFC Championship game between the Chiefs and Bengals that is a must-watch event.

MLB needs a system where the Royals and Reds are both willing and able to sign star free agents, or at the very least keep the ones they develop.

Eh. Isn't the bigger problem that the MLB has the worst marketing engine of any of the major sports? Some of that is structural, there are only 16 games in football and it's all high drama.

But before we try to re-do everything, maybe the MLB could try to make Mike Trout a household name? What are they doing to promote Juan Soto? They have more exciting young talent than in recent memory don't do anything to make people want to watch.

Instead manfred blamed Trout for being boring.

[ThirdGen]

14 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said:

This is the biggest problem with MLB. There are only a handful of teams that ever generate national attention. If the Royals play the Reds nobody watches outside those two markets. Contrast that with the NFL where you can get an AFC Championship game between the Chiefs and Bengals that is a must-watch event.

MLB needs a system where the Royals and Reds are both willing and able to sign star free agents, or at the very least keep the ones they develop.

Multiple reasons for this, none of which are solvable in my opinion.

A weak players' union in the NFL has allowed the teams to force a level of payroll and revenue parity that the MLBPA would never allow, as it also holds down salaries.

A schedule that has 10% of the games, forcing football fans who want to see more than 17 games per year to watch other games.

Gambling, football is a fun easy sport to bet on.  Bet the spread, square pools, confidence pools whatever, even people who don't follow football closely can put a little money and have fun watching a game they normally wouldn't care about.  I know people do bet on MLB but not in a way that is approachable by casual fans.

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, flavum said:

See, I’m the opposite. I wouldn’t be against best of 3 in the wildcard, best of 5 in DS and CS; and make the World Series the only best of 7. The long series means it gives the casual fan more reason to tune out until the series is 2-2 if it gets there. 

True, but more games is more tv money, whether the casual fans tune in or not.  Owners don’t necessarily care about quality if they get quantity. 

[poppysox]

2 hours ago, bmags said:

Eh. Isn't the bigger problem that the MLB has the worst marketing engine of any of the major sports? Some of that is structural, there are only 16 games in football and it's all high drama.

But before we try to re-do everything, maybe the MLB could try to make Mike Trout a household name? What are they doing to promote Juan Soto? They have more exciting young talent than in recent memory don't do anything to make people want to watch.

Instead manfred blamed Trout for being boring.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

[southsider2k5]

 

[southsider2k5]

 

[southsider2k5]

 

[southsider2k5]

Part 672 of why i can't take these guys seriously.

 

[bmags]

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

I mean, exactly. You weren't re-signing your stars at a cbt of $210M, Oakland Athletics. It won't change if you raise the minimum CBT to 225 or 230.

[chitownsportsfan]

14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Now that's rich.

[fathom]

15 minutes ago, bmags said:

I mean, exactly. You weren't re-signing your stars at a cbt of $210M, Oakland Athletics. It won't change if you raise the minimum CBT to 225 or 230.

Isn’t it less about what poor teams can do and more trying to limit what the rich teams can do?

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, fathom said:

Isn’t it less about what poor teams can do and more trying to limit what the rich teams can do?

Exactly. Why were the Angels a no vote? They want constraints on their competition, including the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox. 

[bmags]

1 minute ago, fathom said:

Isn’t it less about what poor teams can do and more trying to limit what the rich teams can do?

That's the same thing though.

[Dam8610]

5 hours ago, ThirdGen said:

Multiple reasons for this, none of which are solvable in my opinion.

A weak players' union in the NFL has allowed the teams to force a level of payroll and revenue parity that the MLBPA would never allow, as it also holds down salaries.

A schedule that has 10% of the games, forcing football fans who want to see more than 17 games per year to watch other games.

Gambling, football is a fun easy sport to bet on.  Bet the spread, square pools, confidence pools whatever, even people who don't follow football closely can put a little money and have fun watching a game they normally wouldn't care about.  I know people do bet on MLB but not in a way that is approachable by casual fans.

The "weak" NFLPA is getting its players between 47 and 48.5 percent of the leaguewide revenues. The "strong" MLBPA is struggling to get MLB owners to give up 40 percent of the revenues.

[bmags]

Just now, Dam8610 said:

The "weak" NFLPA is getting its players between 47 and 48.5 percent of the leaguewide revenues. The "strong" MLBPA is struggling to get MLB owners to give up 40 percent of the revenues.

MLB contracts are guaranteed and their benefits are much more generous than NFLs.

[poppysox]

8 minutes ago, fathom said:

Isn’t it less about what poor teams can do and more trying to limit what the rich teams can do?

Exactly right.  I would be totally in favor of having a minimum payroll requirement.  That would actually have a chance of making weak teams compete a bit.  I thought parity was everyone's big need.