IlliniKrush Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 This is from Jayson Starks' column on espn.com today. In the short term, players have told us they probably would be willing to discuss just some modest changes in the postseason set-up. These would be the two most significant of those issues: 1) Seeding: Players don't understand why the wild-card team doesn't face the team with the best overall record in the first round, even if that team comes from the same division. Baseball's logic, until now, is that it wouldn't have been right for, say, the 2003 Braves to finish 10 games ahead of the Marlins during the season, then essentially have that entire race wiped out and be sent right back to have to beat Florida again in a best-of-five series. Players, on the other hand, don't see how it was any more reasonable to make the Braves face a Cubs team that was just as formidable. 2) Scheduling: Players understand that TV wants an attractive prime-time playoff game as many nights as possible in October. But players question why one first-round series every year has two off days instead of one (with games Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday). Players think that format creates a greater chance of an upset, because it allows an underdog to pitch its ace twice in the first four games. Players also are looking for an alternative to the format of last year's Boston-Oakland series, which forced the teams to play Games 4 and 5 on opposite coasts with no travel day. What Could've Been How Al Leiter's playoff system would have looked last year: National League (Seeds in parentheses) (1) Braves and (2) Giants: first-round byes (Braves win No. 1 seed by one game) (3) Cubs (NL division winner with worst record) vs. (6) Phillies, best-of-three, all games in Chicago (4) Marlins (wild card with best record) vs. (5) Astros, best-of-three, all games in Florida American League (Seeds in parentheses) (1) Yankees and (2) A's: first-round byes (Yankees win No. 1 seed by 5 games) White Sox and Blue Jays (86 wins apiece) hold one-game playoff to decide final playoff spot (2) Twins vs. (6) White Sox-Blue Jays winner, best-of-three, all games in Minnesota (4) Red Sox (wild card with best record) vs. (5) Mariners, best-of-three, all games in Boston NL wild-card race x-Florida (91-71) x-Houston (87-75) x-Philadelphia (86-76) St. Louis (85-77, 1 GB) Los Angeles (85-77, 1 GB) Arizona (84-78, 2 GB) Montreal 83-79, 3 GB) AL wild-card race x-Boston (95-67) x-Seattle (93-69) y-Chicago (86-76) y-Toronto (86-76) Kansas City (83-79, 3 GB) x-clinched wild-card berth y-tied for final wild-card berth, requiring one-game playoff Would management be willing to re-examine those issues in exchange for extending the All-Star Game agreement? Seems like a reasonable tradeoff. But ... This case still wouldn't be closed. If players agreed to trade an All-Star extension for playoff changes in either or both of those areas, that extension probably would run only through the end of this labor deal in 2006. Then some far more radical ideas would be tossed onto the table. Such as: Changing the All-Star Game, at least occasionally, from league-versus-league to a United States team versus a World team. Extending the Division Series from best-of-five to best-of-seven. Shortening the regular season to 154 games. Adding two, and possibly four, teams to the playoff field. The All-Star Game idea is the change least likely to happen. But the others already are being actively kicked around by Selig's "Major League Baseball in the 21st Century" task force, which includes a glittering array of current and former baseball and union officials, players, media giants and business people. But while that group examines the practicality and potential appeal of a dramatic change in the baseball postseason, players continue to discuss that idea among themselves. And it appears there is quite a bit of interest in a format which Leiter has actually presented to the 21st Century committee. It would go like this: Six teams would make the playoffs in each league -- three division winners and three wild-card teams. The two division winners with the best record in each league then would receive first-round byes. The four remaining teams would be seeded by record, with the division winner playing the wild card with the worst record, and the 4 and 5 seeds facing each other. The first round would be a best-of-three series, with all three games in the city of the clubs with the best record. No travel. No off days. The two survivors would move on to the Division Series, which would expand to best-of-seven. The League Championship Series and World Series wouldn't change. Leiter's pitch for this idea is that baseball needs to reach out beyond those traditionalist fans "who think we should go back to the 1950s, with two leagues, no divisions and eight teams in each league." The fans baseball needs to lure into into the fold are the fans who are spending Saturday afternoons watching skateboarding." "We have to move forward," he says. "We have to be progressive. We have to have inventive ideas." So they want inventive? He'll give them inventive. Why best-of-three in the first round, and no travel days? Because that would add one more one giant obstacle for playoff teams with the worst regular-season records to overcome to get to the World Series, Leiter says. Under the current system, it isn't much harder for an 87-win wild card to reach the World Series than it is for a 108-win division champ. But Leiter believes that giving first-round byes to dominant teams and forcing marginal playoff teams to survive a three-game-in-three-days test, possibly with no home games, "would clearly put those teams at a disadvantage." The 21st-century committee, however, has kicked around another proposal, which originated with the Elias Sports Bureau's Steve Hirdt, to add one playoff team in each league and have the two wild cards play a one-game playoff if they want to advance. That would create even more of a disadvantage, because it would force those teams to use their best pitchers just to advance and make it impossible to start them twice in the next round. But Leiter says that if players are asked to approve that system, "it absolutely won't go through." Players, he says, believe a one-game playoff is unfair, even though one-game playoffs have been used to decide regular-season ties for a century. Beyond that first round, players clearly prefer that all rounds be best-of-seven. But adding up to five more playoff games means the season would have to be shortened, most likely to 154 games. That, of course, creates issues involving contracts and TV agreements based on a 162-game season. But Selig has suggested in the past those issues are resolveable. The question is: What would management's reaction be to a playoff system that is radically different from the current format? Selig admits he was interested in expanding the playoffs as recently as last year. But he changed his mind after last October's ratings shot up like the NASDAQ. Now, he says, "I won't tell you I'm not open-minded. But unless some compelling reason comes up, I think we're just going to stay where we are for a while." But baseball's opposition might be based on more than ratings and time frames. "One of the concerns about extending the playoffs," says Sandy Alderson, MLB's executive vice president for baseball operations, "is not what it does to the postseason time line -- but what it does to the nature of competition during the regular season." What baseball is concerned about, Alderson says, is that, if too many teams make the playoffs, it could actually lessen the meaning and the drama of the season instead of adding to it -- as baseball believes the current wild-card structure has done. Had Leiter's system been in effect last year, for example, 86 wins would have been enough to earn a wild-card spot in each league -- instead of 91 (Marlins) and 95 (Red Sox). That means the Yankees, Braves and Giants essentially would have clinched their playoff reservations in early September -- eliminating them from most of the stretch-drive drama, while focusing it on teams that were barely over .500. So the worry, Alderson says, is that "whenever you add excitement one place, you diminish the excitement somewhere else." Alderson says the 21st-century committee "highly appreciated" Leiter's proposal. But the question about it baseball needs to debate, he says, is: "Does it add to the overall image of the game or detract from it?" Leiter, however, thinks the way to keep interest focused on the best teams is to dangle those first-round byes in front of them. That would create a potentially riveting race within the race among the division winners. And there's another way to maintain that drama, too, he says -- award home-field advantage in the World Series to the team with the best record. "That's something else to compete for," he says. "If that's what's at stake, it's a reason for those teams to play their best players right through to the last game of the year." But that, of course, brings us full-circle. Because that's what Selig isn't prepared to do -- since it pulls the plug on his favorite All-Star brainstorm. So just when you thought baseball had reached that long-sought era of good feeling, it's clear there's still plenty for management and the union to argue about -- now and for years to come. Great. We can hardly wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 4 playoff teams is plenty. We don't need a November World Series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted July 16, 2004 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 4 playoff teams is plenty. We don't need a November World Series. 154 game schedule... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 4 playoff teams is plenty. We don't need a November World Series. I agree, that's one of the things that I love about baseball is that there are only 4 teams that make the playoffs, that makes it difficult to make the playoffs and makes every game really count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 154 games is a bad idea too. Owners don't want to lose the cash. Most likely, the owners will agree to the longer playoff format with more teams if the players agree to a more compact schedule with less days off. Not happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I agree, that's one of the things that I love about baseball is that there are only 4 teams that make the playoffs, that makes it difficult to make the playoffs and makes every game really count. I'd be afraid that this would become like the NBA playoffs... nobody cares after almost two monthes of basketball... I think it's fine the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 The owners would love more playoff teams, the money would be rolling in. Home playoff games are huge cash cows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I'd be afraid that this would become like the NBA playoffs... nobody cares after almost two monthes of basketball... I think it's fine the way it is. Exactly, I think the playoff format is perfect as is and I hope they don't mess with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 The only advantage I see is that if you have more play-off spots (say 6 teams make it per league), you're probably going to see less trades since there will be more contenders. So keeping players consistently on a team might be a plus for this idea. Still, I don't like the idea and I love how the playoffs are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted July 16, 2004 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 Well the one idea i definitely do like is the 1 seed playing the 4 seed, regardless of the division. I've never understood that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Well the one idea i definitely do like is the 1 seed playing the 4 seed, regardless of the division. I've never understood that one. That's different, that I do agree with. I just don't want them expanding the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 This isn't the NBA, if you add teams to the playoffs all you get is a longer postseason which i dont think anyone wants, the NBA playoffs take 2 months to finish, do you really want that for the MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sorry to interrupt you baseball purists, but I don't see why you don't want more playoff teams. Especially as White Sox fans. The Sox don't make the playoffs often, but are rarely out of contention. More playoff teams would help even out the field. More fans would come to games for smaller market teams because their team would be in the race later in the season. More playoff games create huge amounts of money. I don't see why this isn't beneficial for all involved and I don't see why baseball didn't expand the number of teams in the playoffs a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sorry to interrupt you baseball purists, but I don't see why you don't want more playoff teams. Especially as White Sox fans. The Sox don't make the playoffs often, but are rarely out of contention. More playoff teams would help even out the field. More fans would come to games for smaller market teams because their team would be in the race later in the season. More playoff games create huge amounts of money. I don't see why this isn't beneficial for all involved and I don't see why baseball didn't expand the number of teams in the playoffs a long time ago. That's what I was thinking. Our Sox have a much better chance to make the playoffs every year since we're always around or above .500. Plus, an added round of 3 games series would not take nearly as long as the NBA playoffs, which have 7 games series for every round. It would add maybe another week or so, which I could easily deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSoxFan1 Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I agree with dasox24 and danman31. It would be better to see some more teams in the playoffs. Its much better for baseball when fans have something to cheer about and with more playoffs teams more teams will be in a race which means more fans will be involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 I really just hate best of 3's or 5's in baseball. Combined with the off-days, it totally neutralizes the strength of a deep starting rotation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 I really like the ideas as proposed in that article. It rewards the two best teams in the league with byes and rewards the next two with at least 2 home playoff games. Yet, it gives the 5 and 6 seeds a shot, though its at a distinct disadvantage. You wouldn't have teams resting their regulars the last week, as every game would be important for home field advantage or playoff byes. More fans would have hope, longer, therefore more butts in the seats. More games would be big games, again putting butts in the seats. Then with a 154 game schedule, each game would mean a little more than the 162 game schedule games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.