Playoffs That Mean "Baseball"
Ever since the playoffs began in the late 1960s, I never felt right about the early five-game system, the four-team system, with the "borrowed" wild card idea...the whole system, really. I wasn't sure what was missing, but somehow the traditional jump from a dominant regular season did not necessarily mean you were going to the World Series any more. Some team like the Twins, and their weird indoor non-baseball sky, non-baseball carpet, might trampoline a few hits and all the hard work of May, June, and July ends in tears for the Twins' opponent. I was happy that Colorado made the World Series, but it all came about because of one man's failure: Trevor Hoffman. A future HoFer had a singular moment of "fail" and San Diego's season evaporated.
What would work better??
I am going to use the American League and its fourteen teams to illustrate what I believe would create a lot more fan interest, get the right, no-doubt-about -it proven team into the World Series. It is now August 3rd, and the Athletics have shown what August can mean to a team not in contention: they have five possible first-basemen, they have mediocre crowds on a perfect Sunday for baseball, because the team they are playing also has a vanishingly small chance at the playoffs. The sports pages are filled with articles about football players and training camp holdouts, with small print for out of area games.
There doesn't have to be "The Dog Days of August".
I'm looking at the "Wild Card" standings at Baseball Reference:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2009-standings.shtml
Note the relative positions of the fourteen American League teams. Now, what if the "regular" season ended at the end of August? Ended with each team playing a balanced schedule, five at home, five away, against the other thirteen teams? At the end of 130 games, the top six teams play only amongst themselves, for September. Thirty games (not five, not seven) against all the other five top teams, and no one else. If the standings remained as they are, on August 31, as they are today, August 3rd, that would mean the Angels (slegna), Yankees, Red Sox, Texas, Tampa Bay, and Detroit Tigers would get a new schedule, starting September 1, and only playing each other. Pretend you are the PR guy for one of the six teams. Write some copy about "Six Teams...September!" Write up a hypothetical schedule. I did, and I could feel the intensity that was inherent in the concept.
The remaining eight teams, like the Athletics, could now give a shot to the Cliff Penningtons, the Tommy Everidges, and other call-ups, let them play against the lesser competition of Kansas City, Baltimore, Seattle (obviously, the eight teams would also get a new schedule come September 1, but it would not be as important if a game was missed here or there, or a doubleheader had to be scheduled because of a football game.) I feel it is important that teams with no chance to make the postseason, have the leeway to play "future starters" and not affect playoff races during September. Right now, through September, Kansas City and Cleveland have an obligation to "play to top form" whenever they play any of the contenders for the Central Division title. And the schedule guarantees they will be playing them heavily during September. The "Division Title" is a one-hundred-percent construct for MLB that might seem right for football, and its sixteen-game season....but not a sport with one-hundred-plus regular season games!
But let's return to August 3rd, today. That sixth spot that Detroit is holding by a narrow margin, and even Tampa Bay, they would be really generating fan interest, along with Chicago, Seattle, Minnesota, and Toronto. That means games in August would really have some octane, some intensity, for a lot of teams. Unfortunately, the Athletics are not in that group, but think of the American League and what this would mean for the majority of teams: top-rate competition in August for many teams, rather than going through the motions.
For the thirty games of September, the top three teams of the six would have "home field advantage", that is, their six games against the lesser three teams would always start as a three game set at home. Right now, the Angels are pretty much cruising in the AL West, but it would not be so, knowing they are very much neck and neck with two other teams for one of the top three spots. More intensity pumped into August games.
When September 30th came to pass, the top team winning percentage among the six "first tier" team would go to the World Series. No other "playoffs", no end-the-season-one-day-fly-to-playoff-the-next. A traditional, seven-game World Series, with a couple of days rest after September 30th, beginning October 4th, and ending before (not during) the snow weather back East.
It is highly unlikely that a Trevor Hoffman-like meltdown, a single, one-person event, would send a team to the World Series....
....there would be twenty-nine other games that truly measure.
0 recs |
4 comments
Comments
the only problem i see is
ticket sales would be very hard for those other 8 teams as not only are the fans upset those games dont matter, but they no longer get to cheer their team to ruin someone else playoffs chances. also, would the 6th seeded team ever get any home games?
by thewhizkid on Aug 3, 2009 9:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thats really thinking outside the box
1)not good for the A’s
I wouldn’t change a thing for the A’s. They have less teams to contend with in the only 4 team division, which is a nice advantage compared to the NL Central and their 6 teams. The teams in our division don’t include the top 5 payroll teams, which is a huge break, just ask Toronto.
2) Not enough drama.
although the last 30 days could be more exciting for the teams that are in it, it could also be over for five of them mid-sept if one team went on a tear early. And the 7th place team that didn’t get in could conceivably (not probably) end up with a better record than the world series team so it wouldn’t necessarily be more fair. There have been some hellatious sept comebacks in the past that could never happen again.
3) what’s wrong with the underdog winning it all? its not like the one person event dosent happen in other sports or is really a problem needing fixing. One interception, one missed free-throw, one error, the team still had to do most other things right every play in a win and do most everything right in every win on the way to a series.
4) the public would find it boring, the Networks wouldn’t pay big money. Drama is build on team vrs team in a playoff series. Take away 2/3rds of the playoffs and you take away 2/3rd’s of the excitement and revenue gained by having them. No one’s going to care besides the fans of the team with the top winning %.
5) it would mess with all the records. Playing the last month against all good teams or all bad teams dosent seem like it would work for the record books. There would be taint on any records set during that time.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
by OmahaHi on Aug 3, 2009 9:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In a word
No.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Aug 4, 2009 12:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 























